On Excommunication and Its Distinction

In connection with the episcopal consecrations of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), there is frequent talk of excommunication and schism. Often, however, these terms are used imprecisely or even incorrectly. 

A clarification.

By Don Michael Gurtner*

In recent days surrounding the events of Écône it seems that the cudgel of excommunication is being wielded with the aim of frightening those who still take the Catholic faith truly seriously and want to be sincerely Catholic. It appears intended to trigger scruples in the faithful to discourage them and prevent them from receiving the Holy Sacraments from the Society of St. Pius X and participating in its activities.

It is striking how imprecisely commentators and even clergymen use the term excommunication. Furthermore, almost no distinction is made between the different types of excommunication. Whether this happens out of ignorance or by calculation will vary from case to case.

Therefore, it appears to be a work of justice toward the bishops, priests, and faithful of the SSPX to point out a few things regarding excommunication in general and in particular. In many media reports and commentaries, they are portrayed as schismatics standing outside the Church with whom, in contrast to Protestants and Muslims, any contact should best be avoided. This portrayal even comes from people who, by virtue of their office, ought to know better.

To correctly grasp and contextualize excommunication in general, we must first make a few ecclesiological preliminary remarks.

Ecclesiological Foundation

In God's plan of salvation, the Church was already laid out and prepared in Genesis. It is a single and indivisible Church, and provisionally still a Church in a broader sense, so to speak, which prepares the Church as a visible societas perfecta (perfect society). It encompasses all who belong to God, such as the righteous of the Old Covenant and the angels of heaven.

Christ added a new aspect to this one and only Church: He made it visible, instituted by His will and founded by His actions. The actual beginning of the "visible Church" lies in the side wound of Jesus, from which flowed blood and water (connoting Baptism and the Eucharist, or the redemptive sacrifice), and at Pentecost, she is finally revealed.

It is always the one, self-same, and unique Church, which henceforth has two aspects.

• The first aspect, the invisible dimension of the Church, concerns invisible realities: the interior reality of grace, the supernatural life of the soul with God, and the Holy Spirit as the "soul" of the Church by which she is animated.
• The second aspect, which comes through Christ, bestows upon the Church a "visible body," so to speak: the sacraments, the hierarchy, the profession of the true Catholic doctrine, and the visible belonging to the community of her individual members.

Thus, we have a single Church that has, as it were, a body and a soul, two aspects, whereby the visible aspect ultimately does nothing other than externalize the invisible aspect.

Church Means Belonging to God

With Christ, the Church in the sense of belonging to God is externally manifested. This communio sanctorum, the communion of saints who themselves stand in communion with God, is mirrored in the communion of the faithful with one another, and this in turn in communion with the hierarchy, at whose head stands the Pope.

Christ Himself instructed us on what is necessary for salvation: baptism and the right faith (Mk 16:16). Through baptism, one goes from being a creature of God to a child of God, entering the state of grace and being incorporated into the visible Church. Yet the right faith is also a prerequisite for being a member of the Church. It is not enough simply to have just any faith; rather, it requires the profession of the one true faith, that faith which was revealed to us by the Father through the Son.

Therefore, he belongs to the Catholic Church who is baptized and professes the right, true Catholic faith, thereby also becoming an external participant in a communion embodied by the Pope as the visible head of the Church within this world.

Two Types of Excommunication

From this, it follows that there are circumstances which, automatically and by virtue of the facts, cause one to "fall out" of the Church, so to speak, and cease to be its member. These are, first of all, matters concerning the faith:

• Heresy concerns individual truths of faith that are denied.
• Apostasy concerns the faith as such: in the case of apostasy, the faith is rejected as a whole, not merely partially as in heresy.

These are objective facts that lead to exclusion from the Church not as a punishment, but because they are incompatible with the very definition of Church membership. For this reason, no ecclesiastical authority could grant Church membership to a heretic or an apostate. Were this to happen, he would be granted the rights and privileges that Church members enjoy, but on an ontological level, he would still not be what is claimed. He would be treated as a Catholic, but that alone would not ontologically make him a Catholic, even if there were a consensus about it.

Conversely, the same applies: if a majority accuses someone of heresy, for example, without that person actually denying a truth of God, that person would still not have "fallen out" of the Church despite such a flawed judgment.

Furthermore, there is schism. This consists in a willful separation from the Church. One can be completely orthodox but nonetheless schismatic, for example, by believing everything that is Catholic but not wanting to be part of the ecclesiastical community that forms out of the communion of faith. Schism behaves just like heresy and apostasy: it is determined solely by objective facts, not by opinion, polemics, or assertions. A schism cannot possibly arise where the will for unity exists.

Exclusion from the Church community through schism, apostasy, and heresy affects membership in the Church as a whole and as such: not merely the communion of the visible Church, but the Church also regarding the interior life of grace. It refers to the invisible, supernatural aspect of the Church. One is no longer part of the Church because one has fallen out of communion with God, so the state of grace has been extinguished.

"Excommunication" in this sense is therefore not understood as a punishment, but denotes a fact that has objectively occurred through external circumstances because these circumstances oppose the essential, internally necessary prerequisites of Church membership. This is independent of whether it has been externally established or not; an external declaration is not a prerequisite for falling out of supernatural Church membership, but merely establishes this fact after the fact, whereby others must also apply the external consequences to the person concerned.

For this reason, even a Pope could not validly lift an excommunication concerning these three scenarios, as it would still not restore supernatural Church membership. The Church no longer has jurisdictional power over such excommunicated persons, since heretics, apostates, and schismatics are no longer members of the Church. For the Church only has legal authority over those who are actually members of the Church.

Distinguished from this is another form of excommunication, namely excommunication in the sense of an ecclesiastically imposed medicinal penalty (Beugestrafe). This is a completely different kind of excommunication of a different nature: it does not concern leaving the communion with God, i.e., it does not inherently mean falling out of the invisible aspects of the Church, but rather exclusion from the natural community of the faithful. The person excommunicated in this manner is forbidden access to the Church's means of salvation, as well as access to offices and functions. However, he remains a member of the Church, which is why the Church still has jurisdictional power over him. This is the case, for example, when the Church imposes excommunication as a medicinal penalty due to perceived or actual misconduct.

In summary, it must be noted that there is a supernatural Church membership, which concerns the supernatural belonging to God, and a natural Church membership, which concerns belonging to the community of the faithful with one another. The first can only be recognized and declared by the Church, whereas the second is imposed.

On the Case of the Society of St. Pius X

These preliminary remarks, and particularly these distinctions, are important to better contextualize the excommunication of the bishops, priests, and faithful of the Society of St. Pius X.

First, it should be highlighted positively that the Holy See distinguishes the "double excommunication" more clearly than it did in 1988: on one side stand episcopal consecrations without a papal mandate as a ground for excommunication, and on the other side stands the accusation of schism as an independent ground for excommunication. In this context, the accusation of schism is derived from the unauthorized episcopal consecrations; however, both are formally and materially distinct.

Regarding the accusation of schism, the excommunication only takes effect if a schism actually exists. Excommunication based on a schism affects the supernatural, invisible aspect of the Church, as we have seen above. This is bound to objective facts and is not based on ecclesiastical laws; rather, a schism results from a fundamental attitude toward the Church. It must therefore not be confused with disobedience, for example.

An episcopal consecration without a mandate is not a certain, sufficient, and inherently unambiguous sign that a schism necessarily exists. For a schism, to be such, requires knowingly and willfully severing oneself from the Church, no longer understanding oneself as part of the Catholic Church, and therefore rejecting any ecclesiastical authority, specifically that of the Pope, per se and generally. Where this is not present, one can argue depending on the specific case whether it constitutes disobedience; but one certainly cannot speak of a schism.

It is entirely conceivable that someone is a member of the Church and wishes to remain so, recognizes the papal primacy and any ecclesiastical authority generally, but nevertheless disregards individual prohibitions or commands for certain well-founded motives and, for example, consecrates bishops. If the will to separate from the Church is lacking and ecclesiastical authority is generally recognized, no schism can exist, and thus no excommunication either. For excommunication based on a schism is not a simple medicinal penalty, but arises entirely on its own from the fact of having severed oneself from the Church.

Although the Church can and should establish this in such a case, she does so after the fact based on realities that essentially oppose Church membership. A schism does not occur because the Church claims it has occurred; rather, it occurs when certain objective facts are present that cannot be arbitrarily determined, but are dogmatically predefined and can merely be established by the Church when they actually exist.

Now, as far as the Society of St. Pius X is concerned, the situation was unambiguously assessed incorrectly: through word and deed, it has consistently proven, and continues to do so, that it does not sever itself from the Church, but on the contrary sees itself as part of it and also recognizes the hierarchy, especially the Pope, as such. Since, despite claims to the contrary, no schism exists and episcopal consecrations without a mandate are not automatically schismatic, the priests and the faithful of the Society of St. Pius X cannot be excommunicated either. As we stated at the outset, a flawed assessment does not affect supernatural Church membership.

Their situation is comparable to that of a good child who does not carry out the unjust or harmful command of his father, by which the father would inflict severe damage upon himself and his child. The child nevertheless recognizes his father as such, and also recognizes his authority, but uses his God-given intellect to avert great harm.

On the other hand, regarding the episcopal consecrations without a mandate, it must first be considered that the Church fundamentally evaluates this as a criminal offense. Therefore, she provides for excommunication as a medicinal penalty for the consecrating and consecrated bishops (and only for these) as a punishment, that is, which affects the visible aspect of the Church and still views the punished person as part of the Church.

It should only be mentioned in passing that this alone is a contradiction to excommunication based on a schism; for a schismatical person is no longer part of the Church, and thus the Church no longer has jurisdiction over him, rendering a medicinal penalty obsolete. Imposing a medicinal penalty implies that the punished person is a member of the Church and therefore cannot be a schismatic.

But apart from that, in the case of the Society of St. Pius X, those canons of canon law (1323 and 1324) are not applied which clearly and distinctly reduce or even exclude the penalty of excommunication if the persons concerned act on the basis of a real or perceived state of necessity (Notstand), even if this should turn out to be an error.

The Society of St. Pius X is therefore still Catholic; it is a part of the Church, and its priests and faithful are as well. The accusation of schism is based on the false assumption that episcopal consecrations without a mandate, or internal or external assent to them, are ipso facto a certain sign of a schism. Since this is not the case, no schism exists, and since no schism exists, they are still Catholic and not excommunicated, even if they are treated as such externally.

But how many of those who wrongfully claim that the priests and, more recently, also the faithful of the SSPX are schismatic and therefore no longer part of the Catholic Church are in reality themselves no longer part of it because they reject dogmas of the Catholic faith?

*Mag. Don Michael Gurtner is a diocesan priest originally from Austria who resisted the public ban on Masses during the Corona era, thereby earning great merit for the salvation of souls. He is the author of several theological books. In 2023/24, he published the series "On the Situation of the Church" on Katholisches.info, which has also appeared in book form.

Image: FSSPX (Screenshot)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Does it even matter?

The Church Will Bear the Antichrist: Hildegard of Bingen and the Ecclesiology of the SSPX

Representation of Hildegard's Vision of the Church Giving Birth to the Antichrist, While Simultaneously Remaining the Church, as Christ Promised. The Vision Depicts the Battle That Rages Even Within the Church.

By Raniero da Fiore*

The episcopal consecrations of the FSSPX (SSPX) and the entire argumentation for or against these consecrations have once again brought an old ecclesiological conviction of the followers of Lefebvre into focus: the contrast between an alleged "Eternal Rome," traditional and orthodox, and a "Conciliar Rome," modernist and heretical. This way of speaking is difficult to reconcile with Catholic doctrine on the unity and indestructibility of the Church. No matter how great and deep the current crisis may be, it requires true theological acrobatics to justify it. Nevertheless, this notion is not entirely without foundation. Its strength stems from a true insight that, unfortunately, all too often remains trapped in an inadequate doctrinal construction.

This insight consists in recognizing that the final crisis of the Church will not come exclusively from the outside. The mystery of iniquity will not manifest itself only in the form of an external persecution, a pagan emperor, or a power hostile to Christianity. Biblical and patristic tradition has always considered the possibility of an internal corruption, a trial that would strike the Church itself in its historical existence.

Many contemporary Catholics seem uncomfortable with this perspective. Accustomed since the Council of Trent to a defensive apologetics that equates any reference to an ecclesial apostasy with an approach to Protestantism, they prefer to ignore the problem rather than confront it. But a question does not disappear by being ignored. On the one hand, Christ promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. On the other hand, Saint Paul announced a great apostasy and the appearance of the man of lawlessness (ho anthrōpos tēs anomias) before the end of time. Both statements belong to revelation, and neither may be sacrificed for the sake of the other.

Father Julio Meinvielle [^1] formulated this tension through the well-known image of a "Church of Promises" and a "Church of Propaganda." The first remains founded on the infallible word of Christ; the second designates that historical dimension of the Church in which human miseries, compromises, ambitions, and infidelities become visible. The importance of this insight lies in the fact that it does not attempt to solve the problem through an artificial separation between a true and a false church. The mystery remains open precisely because both dimensions coexist within the same visible reality.

Saint Hildegard and the "Lutheran Captivity"

Here, one of the most extraordinary figures of Christendom gains special significance. Saint Hildegard of Bingen was neither an insignificant visionary nor a popular prophetess of dubious reputation. A Benedictine abbess, advisor to emperors and popes, author of theological, scientific, and musical works, she occupied a prominent position in the intellectual and religious life of the 12th century.

Despite her immense authority throughout Christendom, her figure was used by Lutherans during the Reformation to attack the papacy: in fact, some of her exegetical visions pointed to a deep connection between the Church and the Antichrist. This brought her centuries of marginalization, during which her work was set aside as suspect. It was not until Pope Benedict XVI in 2012 that she was freed from this "Lutheran captivity" by officially enrolling her in the catalog of saints and elevating her to a Doctor of the Church.

It is worth pausing for a moment on this point, because it is not merely an honorary distinction. By this, the Church recognizes in a person a special doctrinal significance that deserves to be presented to the faithful. It is hard to imagine that Joseph Ratzinger, one of the greatest modern experts on the patristic and medieval tradition, would not have known one of the most famous and disturbing visions of the Scivias: that in which the Antichrist is born from the Church.

This should give pause especially to those who diagnose "anti-papism" with the same certainty that medieval doctors diagnosed imbalances in bodily humors. The idea that the Church will go through a profound eschatological crisis arising from its very interior does not come from some traditionalist blog, conspiracy theory, or modern apocalyptic exaggeration. It belongs to the work of a Doctor of the Church whose teaching Benedict XVI explicitly recommended to all Christians. Unfortunately, the Lefebvrian world cannot rely too heavily on Hildegard precisely here, where it would benefit them most, because the authority of this saint depends on canonizations whose validity they usually question.

The Vision of the Scivias

The vision that interests us is found in the third book of the Scivias, which is dedicated to salvation history and the consummation of time. Hildegard beholds a massive female figure representing the Church. The woman appears crowned and glorious, clothed in celestial dignity.

But as the gaze moves down from the navel, the image begins to change. There appear wounds, scales, blemishes, and disfigurements that symbolize the accumulated sins of the children of the Church throughout history. And then something monstrous happens. Right at that spot "where the woman is distinguished," a monstrous black head with fiery eyes, donkey's ears, and lion-like jaws arises: the man of lawlessness.

The miniature that accompanies the vision created under Hildegard's own supervision and shown at the beginning of this article possesses an even greater visual power. The Ecclesia remains crowned, she continues to sit on her throne, she remains the Bride of Christ. But from her very bowels arises the monstrous head of the Antichrist.

The Antichrist does not appear as a reality completely outside the Church. This observation is crucial because it allows us to understand simultaneously the validity and the error of certain contemporary analyses from traditional circles. Their validity lies in recognizing that the crisis can mature in the very heart of the visible Church. Their error, however, shows itself where they try to explain this insight through an all too simple separation between two different churches: Eternal Rome versus Conciliar Rome.

This solution possesses the appearance of an irresistible clarity, but ultimately introduces a way of thinking that is profoundly foreign to Catholic tradition. Classical Protestantism proceeded in exactly this way by identifying the Antichrist with the papacy. Wherever it perceived corruption, it concluded that the true Church must be found elsewhere. Hildegard's vision is far more uncomfortable because it prevents such a simplification. The crowned woman remains the Church, and the wounds do not turn her into something else. The corruption does not give birth to a second church; the Antichrist emerges from her wounds without destroying her identity.

The Dramatic Proximity to Evil

Father Leonardo Castellani[^2] also recognized the importance of this problem. In his work  Cristo vuelve o no vuelve? (Is Christ Returning or Not?), he emphasized the need to regain certain traditional insights that modern exegesis had abandoned because it suspected them of Protestantism. Especially that insight which allows us to understand the dramatic relationship between the historical Church and the figure of the Great Harlot:

"This would be the truth that Protestantism has held captive and which we must liberate like Lucia Miranda." (2004, 30)[^3]

Not because both realities could easily be identified with each other, but because the history of the Church can be mysteriously drawn into a shocking proximity to that very thing which opposes Christ.

Castellania’s image of Dulcinea helps to understand this mystery. Although the Argentine priest uses her as a symbol for the homeland, she can certainly also be understood in connection with the Church of the last times: at once corrupted and turned into a harlot, yet at the same time innocent and holy. The temptation of a bad theology is always to select one of the two aspects and deny the other. A certain anti-intellectualist tendency, which also characterizes the SSPX, might perhaps lie in the background of this attitude. Nevertheless, the Catholic exegetical tradition forces us to consider both realities simultaneously.

Fundamentally, the entire history of salvation seems to develop according to the same oscillating, cyclical movement: a sort of succession of purifications and catastrophes that escalates further and further, as Tolkien teaches in his letters. Adam receives paradise and falls, together with his descendants, who must be purified by the flood. The sons of Noah, preserved in the ark, eventually repeat those actions and are scattered at Babel. Finally, and in a particularly exemplary way, God founds Israel, the heir of the covenant, and this people ends up crucifying the Messiah. Those to whom God grants the greatest privileges become the primary actors in the greatest betrayals.

Castellani writes in his Apocalypse of Saint John:

"When Christ came, times were confusing and sad. Religion was corrupt in its leaders and consequently also in a part of the people. 'Do everything they tell you, but do not act according to their deeds.' Christ therefore did not leave the synagogue, but allowed Himself to be killed in order to purify it. From His pierced heart arose the Church, which was originally Jewish. When Christ returns, the situation will be similar. Only Pharisaism, the sin against the Holy Spirit, is capable of producing that great apostasy which He predicted: 'the greatest tribulation since the flood' will be brought about by the worst corruption, the corruption of the best." (2005, 209)

From this perspective, a final crisis arising within the Church does not represent an anomaly, but rather the consummation (usque ad summum) of a dynamic that runs through the entire history of salvation.

The Coexistence of Two Dimensions

Yet precisely here we also find the insurmountable boundary of this exegetical tradition. Neither Hildegard nor Castellani nor Meinvielle ever teach that the gates of hell will prevail against the Church. Nor do they claim that the Church will disappear and withdraw into a community of the pure ("Christ therefore did not leave the synagogue"). Even less do they imagine a sort of true church that persists exclusively in small groups of resistance fighters who go so far as to call themselves the "Ark of Salvation," as Father Benoît de Jorna of the SSPX has written.

It is precisely here that Meinvielle's insight gains its full depth. The Church of Promises and the Church of Propaganda do not form two different societies. They do not possess two hierarchies, do not have two popes, and do not exist as separate realities. Both remain mysteriously united under the same visible head.

The same pope who presides over the indestructible Church can simultaneously find himself at the head of an ecclesial structure permeated by errors, compromises, and confusion, thereby favoring the progress of the mystery of iniquity. Precisely therein lies the tragedy: both dimensions coexist.

*Raniero da Fiore, pseudonym, author for the blog Caminante Wanderer. Translation/Footnotes: Giuseppe Nardi Image: Wikicommons/Rupertsberger Scivias-Kodex

[^1]: Julio Meinvielle (1905–1973) was an Argentine priest, philosopher, theologian, and publicist, best known as a representative of a strongly Thomistic Catholic thought. His focus was on the question of which historical forces pave the way for an anti-Christian order. [^2]: Father Leonardo Castellani (1899–1981) was an Argentine Jesuit, priest, writer, theologian, philosopher, and publicist. He is considered one of the most eccentric Catholic thinkers of the 20th century in Argentina. He dealt with the question of how the figure of the Antichrist is to be understood from the biblical texts. [^3]: Lucia Miranda is a legendary figure from early Spanish history of Argentina. She is said to have come to the Rio de la Plata with the first Spanish expedition in 1527 and to have been captured by indigenous people during their attack on the first Spanish settlement, Sancti Spiritus, in 1529.

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

SSPX critics should head down to their local banjo Mass

Chief Bergoglian Cardinal Accused of Sex-Abuse

Cardinal Cristobal Romero Archbishop of Rabat and, as a "Bergoglian," one of the most ardent defenders of documents such as Amoris laetitia and Fiducia supplicans, is facing allegations of sexual abuse. The Vatican has initiated a preliminary investigation.

[Katholisches ] The Spanish Cardinal Cristobal Lopez Romero is of the best-known representatives of Pope Francis's church-political course in the Hispanic world and a staunch defender of both Amoris laetitia and Fiducia supplicans is facing serious allegations. A preliminary investigation by the Holy See is underway against the Archbishop of Rabat after at least five women accused him of sexual assault or inappropriate behavior.

Cristobal Lopez Romero, a Salesian, was appointed Archbishop of Rabat in Morocco by Francis in 2017. In 2019, Francis created him a cardinal.

Consequently, Lopez Romero has been one of the most prominent Bergoglian figures within the College of Cardinals in recent years. He defended the opening toward remarried divorcees and other irregular unions in the spirit of Amoris laetitia, as well as the Vatican declaration Fiducia supplicans, which allows for the blessing of same-sex couples. During the 2025 conclave, his name was even mentioned among the papabili in progressive circles.

Since 2022, he has served as the President of the North African Bishops' Conference. Under his leadership, this bishops' conference”which is limited to the Arab-Berber-Egyptian north of African”stood by Pope Francis as the only part of Africa to do so when Sub-Saharan Africa unanimously opposed same-sex blessings.

Now, this prominent representative of the Francis line has himself become the focus of an investigation.

According to research by the news agency AFP, at least five women have accused the 74-year-old cardinal of sexual misconduct. The allegations range from repeated sexual assaults to intrusive physical advances. AFP bases its report on the statements of several affected individuals as well as information from within the archdiocese.

One woman, who was active in church work for years, told the agency of repeated sexual assaults. Her full testimony has not yet been published for privacy reasons. Another woman submitted a written statement to the Apostolic Nunciature in Rabat. In it, she describes "physical gestures" that she felt were inappropriate, including particularly prolonged hugs and an attempt to kiss her against her will. According to a source within the archdiocese, at least three other women have reported similar experiences, some of them during confession.

The Vatican has since launched a canonical preliminary investigation. In response, Lopez Romero declared that he would withdraw from the public exercise of his office until the investigation is completed. He will no longer lead public worship services and will not perform any pastoral duties for the time being so as not to interfere with the investigation.

The Cardinal firmly rejects the allegations. Speaking to AFP and the Spanish news agency EFE, he stated that he had committed "neither aggression, nor violence, nor sexual harassment." He is cooperating fully with the responsible church authorities in Rome.

According to Moroccan judicial authorities, no criminal complaint has been filed against the Archbishop with the country's state authorities so far. The investigation is currently limited to the canonical proceedings of the Holy See.

Lopez Romero comes from Almerma, belongs to the Salesians of Don Bosco, and spent nearly two decades as a missionary in Paraguay, whose citizenship he later adopted. After spending further years in Bolivia, Pope Francis dispatched him to Rabat as Archbishop.

Leo XIV also promoted the Spaniard. On June 24, 2025, he appointed him a member of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, and on April 9, 2026, a member of the Dicastery for Communication.

The case adds to the ongoing, non-stop series of abuse and cover-up scandals that have shaken the Catholic Church since the post-conciliar era. Although a policy of "zero tolerance” first proclaimed by Benedict XVI”was repeatedly reaffirmed under the pontificate of Francis, but the Argentine Pope repeatedly counteracted his own measures. The allegations raised against one of the best-known champions of his reform course now lends the case a particular church-political volatility.

Until the conclusion of the Vatican investigation, the presumption of innocence applies.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi 

Image: Wikicommons

Trans: Tancred  vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG