Bishop Schneider has argued that any future excommunications following episcopal consecrations carried out by the Society of Saint Pius X without papal approval would likely be invalid due to a supposed lack of intent.
“Therefore, I think that, if the excommunication would be applied, it would be in some way not valid because there is no intention to do a schismatic act on the side of the Society of Pius X, and you cannot be punished when you have not the intention to do it, according to the canon law.”
As much as we appreciate Bishop Athanasius Schneider for his support of Tradition, he is plainly mistaken in claiming that the excommunication would be invalid because of a lack of intention. The reasoning does not align with the principles of canon law.
Canon 751 clearly states: “Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
In the case of the 1988 episcopal consecrations, there were repeated warnings from Pope John Paul II not to proceed. Despite these explicit prohibitions, the consecrations were knowingly carried out by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Acting in defiance of a direct papal command constitutes a grave delict in canon law.
Canon 1382 states: “A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate, and the person who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.”
That penalty does not depend on claiming a schismatic intention. The law penalizes the act itself because such an act directly harms the unity and hierarchical structure of the Church.
Both in moral theology and Canon Law, good intentions do not justify objectively disobedient acts that damage ecclesial unity. A person may believe he is acting to preserve Tradition, but if he knowingly violates a law meant to safeguard the Church’s unity, the penalty can still apply.
In short: Canon law cannot—and must not—be overcomplicated just to excuse or accommodate offenders. That is the tactic of bad civil lawyers who twist the law to protect corrupt politicians or criminals. In the Church, bending rules for the sake of those who knowingly break them undermines justice, damages unity, and insults the divine authority Christ entrusted to His Church.
So, Schneider’s argument fails because Canon Law does not require a subjective intention to “be schismatic.” If someone knowingly performs an act that objectively breaks communion—such as consecrating bishops without a pontifical mandate—the law can impose penalties regardless of claimed motives.
Bishop Eleganti Disagrees with Bishop Schneider
In response to Bishop Schneider, Bishop Marian Eleganti argues that claiming a lack of intention to create schism does not change the objective reality of disobedient acts such as unauthorized episcopal consecrations. He says such claims can mislead people by masking actions that are effectively schismatic while pretending to remain united with the Pope. According to him, the SSPX is “existing in a kind of jurisdictional nirvana through self-authorisation, considering themselves the only true Catholics, with the only true sacraments, at least without defects, and the only true doctrine.”
Priests are bound to obedience to the Pope
Clerics must always remember their fundamental duty of obedience to the Pope. Canon law states this clearly:
Canon 273: “Clerics are bound by a special obligation to show reverence and obedience to the Supreme Pontiff and their own ordinary.”
This means that, by default, priests and bishops are required to obey the Roman Pontiff. That obligation is not optional or selective; it is part of the very structure of the Church established by Jesus Christ through Peter the Apostle and his successors.
Of course, obedience does not mean endorsing every prudential judgment or controversial pastoral document—many faithful Catholics have raised concerns about texts such as Fiducia Supplicans. But disagreement with particular decisions does not cancel the fundamental principle: clerics remain bound by Canon Law to show reverence and obedience to the Pope.
Deliberate disobedience to this obligation is not merely a disciplinary issue; it undermines the authority that Christ Himself entrusted to the Church. To reject the obedience owed to these offices is, in effect, an insult to our Lord, Jesus Christ, because it disregards the divine order He established—regardless of how questionable or imperfect the individuals occupying those offices may be.
Vatican I Declares Anathema on Persistent Resistance to the Pope
SSPX’s persistent resistance to papal authority must be taken with utmost seriousness. As taught by Pastor Aeternus at the First Vatican Council, the Roman Pontiff possesses full, supreme, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church, even in matters of discipline and governance. The Council concludes with a solemn warning: those who deny this authority “let him be anathema.” Persistent rejection of the Pope’s governing authority therefore risks placing one under the very condemnation the Council itself pronounces.
“Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles; anathema sit.”
A good translation of this stipulation can be found in Bishop Schneider’s book, Flee from Heresy: A Catholic Guide to Ancient and Modern Errors:
“If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”
It is therefore clear that a Catholic group like the SSPX cannot claim fidelity to the Church and to Tradition while disregarding the authority Christ entrusted to the Roman Pontiff. What they are doing is neither truly Catholic nor genuinely traditional.
