By What Instrument? Ecclesia Dei Fulfilled

Author’s note: Since the release of the documents regarding the July 1 SSPX consecrations, it has become public knowledge that Catholics, who are under no penalty, are being treated as criminals, even publicly so, and often in chapels and parishes run by Catholic priestly societies committed to the Traditional Mass. This is not the only place it is happening, but the fact that it is happening in those places is most disheartening. These events have inspired the following essay, which concerns the legal problem we are facing in general, but with some specific emphasis on the situation as it pertains to parishes committed to the Traditional Mass. Now, this article is not intended as an apologetic for the SSPX. I have made that case elsewhere, and men far more qualified than I am have made it in a million other places. Instead, I am taking the various documents released since 1 July and assessing the responses to them in light of canon law and the practice of the Church. My claim is narrow: the framework by which the lay faithful attached to the Society have been declared excommunicated cannot be applied consistently to anyone. The logic of the documents used as the foundation for the treatment of the lay faithful undercuts the very application of those documents. We do not need to absolve the Society of any wrongdoing here. We need only show that the instrument meant to condemn the priests and the faithful does not exist. It is unfortunate that so much of this conversation has become litigious, centred on canon law. Nevertheless, this is the ground on which the opponents of the Society have planted their flag. There are many other ways to argue for the innocence of the Society and of the faithful it serves, and I believe they are much stronger in the end, because the laws of the Church exist to serve her supernatural mission, which is the salvation of souls — and that mission is not accomplished by a code of human law. I hope readers will keep that in mind. At the same time, for those who want pedantic canonical proof, I hope this article will be useful. Before we continue, I ask the critic to keep this in mind before constructing an emotional argument in the comment section about topics that are not discussed here. Links mentioned in the Audio Recording: Mexico Pilgrimage: https://kennedyhall.ca/mexico https://realestateforlife.org/ https://www.icatholicmobile.com/ Mere Tradition with Kennedy Hall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

I. What Was Actually Issued Three documents are in play, and almost every commentator has treated them as though they were one. They are not. They differ in kind, in the intention of their authors, and — decisively — in juridical force. The Decree of 2 July is a declaratory decree. It declares that six named men have incurred latae sententiae excommunication: two consecrators and four consecrated, under canons 1387 and 1364 §1. Six men are named. Technically, Bishop Fellay was not penalized in the same way as the others, and only the charge of schism was reserved to him. In any event, against no other person does the Decree declare, impose, or inflict any penalty whatsoever. No priests and no laymen are named. The Explanatory Note accompanies the Decree. It is a nota esplicativa. It is not a law: canon 7 provides that a law comes into existence when it is promulgated, and canon 8 specifies the manner. It is not a general decree with legislative force under canon 29. It is not a general executory decree under canon 31. It is not even an instruction under canon 34 — and canon 34 §2 is worth reading slowly, because it provides that instructions do not derogate from laws, and that any provision in them irreconcilable with law lacks all force. And, a document outlining how SSPX faithful and priests can be “reconciled” has been released as well. We should break this down for the average — normal! — reader who does not s