Trad Answers

Robert Siscoe and John Salza, authors of True or False Pope?, tackle questions that are perplexing many Catholics today using Traditional Catholic Theology.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

@realsedepicante Then we can begin by discussing the premises. You ought to come on. We will treat you fair and it will make for an interesing discussion.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

@LieGilmore @HicksonMaike https://t.co/4HsxsuFpJR

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

Does Dr. Hickson not know this alleged secret of LaSalette (circa 1879 version) was repeatedly condemned by Rome. If I'm not mistaken, Rome even attached an ipso facto excommunication on anyone who publishes it. The real secret (1846) sent to Pius IX was entirely different.

[Dr. Maike Hickson @HicksonMaike]

“Fight, children of light; you the few who can see. For now is the time of all times, the end of all ends. The Church will eclipse, the world will be in dismay. It is time you filled the earth with light. I am at your side.”
Our Lady of La Salette.
Thank you for this, Mr. Matt.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

The alleged Secret of LaSalette that speaks of Rome losing the faith and becoming the seat of antichrist, and of the Church being in eclipse, is not the Secret that Melanie sent to Pius IX in 1851. It is a new version that appeared 27 years later, and which was immediately and repeatedly condemned by Rome.

The following link contains the original (1851) Secret of LaSalette as well as the documentation of Rome's response to it, and condemnation of it. Also included is a letter from Pope Pius X himself concerning a rebellious priest who, under the pretext of promoting Our Lady of LaSalette, rebelled against his bishop, disregarded his warnings and decrees, and refused to acknowledge his suspension that had been imposed on him.
https://t.co/dzLLj3tmNc

[Christus regnat! Christus imperat! @LieGilmore]

@TradAnswers @HicksonMaike https://t.co/rEQ3lafQwN

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

@HicksonMaike The Secret in question was condemned many times by the Church. It's also certain that it's not the original. Melanie only received one secret. Why would you accept a later version that was condemned by the Church? The only reason that makes sense is that you like what it says.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

@peregasolinus You should be trusting the authoritative judgment of the DDF, which is the legitimately constituted authority over these matters. Fr. Murray is not.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

Contrary to Kennedy Hall's claim, the wording of the Note is entirely correct. It states that SSPX clergy are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics who are subject to the penalty of excommunication.

The clergy publicly adhere to the SSPX as its members. Since the SSPX, as an organization, is a schismatic sect, such public adherence (sectae acatholicae nomen dare) suffices for notoriety of fact. Consequently, their culpability is presumed in the external forum (1983 CIC, can. 1321 §3; 1917 CIC, can. 2200 §1).

Regarding the decree, although notorious schism suffices for one to be considered a schismatic and therefore subject to the censure, it does not suffice for the Church to formally decare that the culprit has actually incurred a latae sententiae censure.

That’s why the decree stopped short of declaring that the clergy incurred the censures, while the explanatory note said they must be considered schismatics and therefore subject to the censure.

[Roberts Carlos @RobertsCarlos_]

@TradAnswers Tense issue this is fine when speaking about a future potential excommunication but the explanatory note which contains less legal force contradicts this uses current tense. Hence in canon law the sentence in the more authoritative document must be assumed

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

@Sylaene It is sufficient for notority, which itself suffices for them to be legally considered schismatics by the Church and subject to the censure. But notoriety is not sufficient for each individual a group, as a whole, to be declared to have incurred excommunication.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

@HicksonMaike Yes, and Rome came down hard on the Bishop for approving it. They even required that, if possible, he collect all copies and burn them. All the documentation is available online. I can send it to you if you'd like.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

Here is what Grok said about my reply: https://t.co/XsTaokL1qY

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

For those interested, I posted my comments (below) concerning Kennedy Hall's claim into Grok and asked if what I wrote is true. In reading Grok's reply, take note especially of the section on canonical reasoning since that is what my post focused on:

Reply from Grok:

Yes, the statement is accurate and aligns with the Vatican's July 2, 2026, decree and its explanatory note from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF).

The explanatory note explicitly states (point 1):

"The sacred ministers belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics (cf. Ecclesia Dei, 5 c; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note... 1996, 5–6), and are therefore subject to the excommunication prescribed by canon law (can. 1364 § 1 CIC)."

This directly matches the claim you quoted.

The decree itself formally declares latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication only for the six specific bishops involved in the July 1 consecrations (incurred ipso facto under canons 1387 and 1364 §1 of the 1983/2021 CIC). It warns others not to "adhere" to the schism or they too would incur it.

Canonical Reasoning in the Statement

Your description correctly reflects standard application of canon law on notorious/public schism and presumptions of culpability:

•Public adherence to a schismatic group (here, SSPX clergy as members) constitutes sectae acatholicae nomen dare (joining or publicly adhering to a non-Catholic sect). This creates notoriety of fact.
Presumption of culpability in the external forum follows (1983 CIC can. 1321 §3; parallels in 1917 CIC can. 2200 §1). One is treated as a schismatic unless proven otherwise internally.

•Notorious schism establishes the status and subjection to censure (can. 1364 §1 for schism), but a formal declaratory sentence is often needed (or at least prudent) to definitively establish that a latae sententiae penalty was incurred in individual cases, especially for broader application. This is why the decree targets the six bishops specifically with a declaration, while the note addresses the clergy more generally as "considered schismatics... subject to" the penalty.

This distinction (status vs. formal declaration of incurred penalty) is a common canonical nuance and matches historical precedents (e.g., 1988 and the 1996 PCLT note referenced by the DDF).

Context on Kennedy Hall's Claim

Kennedy Hall (in his July 2, 2026, episode "Neither Schismatic Nor Excommunicated" and related content) argues against the Vatican's assessment—contending the SSPX is not in schism, the consecrations were not schismatic due to necessity/state of emergency, and the penalties are unjust/invalid or misapplied. He and SSPX defenders often emphasize distinctions between "schismatic act" (acknowledged in 1988 Ecclesia Dei) and full schism, supply of jurisdiction, etc.

The Vatican's documents take the opposite view, treating ongoing defiance (especially repeated unauthorized episcopal consecrations) as establishing schism for the group/clergy. Your quoted analysis correctly notes that the note's wording is precise per the DDF's own language and does not overstep into a blanket declaratory sentence for all clergy (which the decree reserves for the named bishops).

In short: the statement you provided is a faithful summary of the DDF's position and canonical logic. Whether one accepts the Vatican's facts of schism (as Hall disputes) is a separate theological/judgment question, but the wording and distinction described are correct. (END)

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

@RonSelgrat2ddg No question about it. As a public defender & formal adherent of the SSPX, Mr. Hall is a public non-Catholic who must be received into the Church by a formal process. Hopefully he has the humility to acknowledge his errors and repent. Everyone makes mistakes; fools persist in them

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

For those interested, I posted my comments (below) concerning Kennedy Hall's claim into Grok and asked if what I wrote is true. In reading Grok's reply, take note especially of the section on canonical reasoning since that is what my post focused on:

Reply from Grok:

Yes, the statement is accurate and aligns with the Vatican's July 2, 2026, decree and its explanatory note from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF).

The explanatory note explicitly states (point 1):

"The sacred ministers belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics (cf. Ecclesia Dei, 5 c; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note... 1996, 5–6), and are therefore subject to the excommunication prescribed by canon law (can. 1364 § 1 CIC)."

This directly matches the claim you quoted.

The decree itself formally declares latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication only for the six specific bishops involved in the July 1 consecrations (incurred ipso facto under canons 1387 and 1364 §1 of the 1983/2021 CIC). It warns others not to "adhere" to the schism or they too would incur it.

Canonical Reasoning in the Statement

Your description correctly reflects standard application of canon law on notorious/public schism and presumptions of culpability:

•Public adherence to a schismatic group (here, SSPX clergy as members) constitutes sectae acatholicae nomen dare (joining or publicly adhering to a non-Catholic sect). This creates notoriety of fact.
Presumption of culpability in the external forum follows (1983 CIC can. 1321 §3; parallels in 1917 CIC can. 2200 §1). One is treated as a schismatic unless proven otherwise internally.

•Notorious schism establishes the status and subjection to censure (can. 1364 §1 for schism), but a formal declaratory sentence is often needed (or at least prudent) to definitively establish that a latae sententiae penalty was incurred in individual cases, especially for broader application. This is why the decree targets the six bishops specifically with a declaration, while the note addresses the clergy more generally as "considered schismatics... subject to" the penalty.

This distinction (status vs. formal declaration of incurred penalty) is a common canonical nuance and matches historical precedents (e.g., 1988 and the 1996 PCLT note referenced by the DDF).

Context on Kennedy Hall's Claim

Kennedy Hall (in his July 2, 2026, episode "Neither Schismatic Nor Excommunicated" and related content) argues against the Vatican's assessment—contending the SSPX is not in schism, the consecrations were not schismatic due to necessity/state of emergency, and the penalties are unjust/invalid or misapplied. He and SSPX defenders often emphasize distinctions between "schismatic act" (acknowledged in 1988 Ecclesia Dei) and full schism, supply of jurisdiction, etc.

The Vatican's documents take the opposite view, treating ongoing defiance (especially repeated unauthorized episcopal consecrations) as establishing schism for the group/clergy. Your quoted analysis correctly notes that the note's wording is precise per the DDF's own language and does not overstep into a blanket declaratory sentence for all clergy (which the decree reserves for the named bishops).

In short: the statement you provided is a faithful summary of the DDF's position and canonical logic. Whether one accepts the Vatican's facts of schism (as Hall disputes) is a separate theological/judgment question, but the wording and distinction described are correct. (END)

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

Contrary to Kennedy Hall's claim, the wording of the Note is entirely correct. It states that SSPX clergy are in schism and must therefore be considered schismatics who are subject to the penalty of excommunication.

The clergy publicly adhere to the SSPX as its members. Since the SSPX, as an organization, is a schismatic sect, such public adherence (sectae acatholicae nomen dare) suffices for notoriety of fact. Consequently, their culpability is presumed in the external forum (1983 CIC, can. 1321 §3; 1917 CIC, can. 2200 §1).

Regarding the decree, although notorious schism suffices for one to be considered a schismatic and therefore subject to the censure, it does not suffice for the Church to formally decare that the culprit has actually incurred a latae sententiae censure.

That’s why the decree stopped short of declaring that the clergy incurred the censures, while the explanatory note said they must be considered schismatics and therefore subject to the censure.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

@HierB4TheAC @TheWMReview If you believe there are heresies in V2, quote the actual text, explain why you believe it is heresy as opposed to a lesser error, and then quote the defined dogma that the teaching directly contradicts. Good luck.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

@DrKwasniewski Not yet but I will this evening and report back.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

Does Kwasniewski still not realize the decree intentionally avoided declaring that the priests and laity incurred the censure? Doing so would have required an investigation into each and every priest and lay person to establish subjective guilt and contumacy.

[Peter Kwasniewski @DrKwasniewski]

People sure are jumping the gun in their assumption about how EVERYONE connected in any way with the SSPX is now EXCOMMUNICATED and IN SCHISM. One would think the internet is swarming with wannabe inquisitors who can't wait to let their inner Torquemada out!

In any case, it looks like Card. Fernandez bungled his effort (again). If you adopt a legal point of view, neither the priests of the SSPX nor the laity who attend their chapels are subject to excommunication.

I shared the two articles that (so far) have appeared on this question with several high-profile canon lawyers—one of them the judicial vicar of a major archdiocese!—and they all said the analyses were essentially correct (see links below).

One of them wrote to me:

«What another canonical mess they've made. I had hopes that, with Leo having a degree in the law, we'd at least get some sanity and consistency, but no. As you've seen, the excommunications, at least of the priests and especially of the lay faithful, are not binding. In their haste to jump on the situation, they've made it worse than before.

Certainly, the lay faithful who attend Mass at an SSPX chapel, even ordinarily, are not under any censure whatsoever simply for that fact. They are not schismatic, they need no "rite" or process to return to full communion, having never left it. Kennedy Hall's analysis seems quite sound and reliable to me.

Perhaps it's best that the Vatican is being run by mental midgets, else they would have sewn things up in a more disastrous way. Instead, they've given us a net with more holes than Peter's fishing nets on the shores of Galilee.»

https://t.co/F8qDjRiqHG

https://t.co/r36ObxWyWQ

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

@Doragoon6 No, what sufficed for proof of a heretical statement is one that directly contradicts a dogma, which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

Please quote one heresy of Pope Leo; explain why you believe it is heresy, as opposed to a lesser error; and quote the definitive teaching of the Church that the alleged heresy *directly* contradicts (i.e., without requiring additional steps of reasoning).

[The WM Review @TheWMReview]

It is a SCRUPLE to be concerned about censures from those whose teaching one openly states is heretical.

If there really is a problem with Fiducia Supplicans, Amoris Laetitia, the Abu Dhabi declaration, and all the rest of it, then one has no business scrupling over censures from those responsible for them. Such scruples contradict the clear light given to us by the Church.

- Can heretics excommunicate? Foundational canonical text says they cannot
https://t.co/cYYSge6Zkt

- ‘Audivimus’, ‘Achatius’ and Causa XXIV: Heretics Excommunicating Catholics
https://t.co/rnhXztXPxl

- Heretics REALLY can’t excommunicate: More clarifications in light of SSPX excommunications
https://t.co/G8UesUxGBb

- Abp. Lefebvre and the 'heretics can't excommunicate' argument
https://t.co/A00atO8X8n

The good Lord wishes us to live in the light of reason, enlightened by faith and the teaching of the Church. It is not fitting for Christians to allow their lives to be governed by scruples and contradictory fears.

Tell your friends:

"Heretics, excommunicates, and those who preach heresy, are unable to excommunicate, or to declare automatic excommunications, or to condemn others as schismatics."

Deo gratias.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

@AelfricEynsham Quote the actual teaching and then prove the contrary has been infallibly proposed as divinely revealed by the force of the OUM.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

@X_Thesista Before declaring someone a heretic, at least learn what constitutes heresy, and then learn what is required for the church to consider someone a heretic.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

@X_Thesista The Arians explicitly and directly denied homoousian. No teaching of the recent popes qualifies as heresy, even on the level of a proposition. Calling them heretics only reveals ignorance.

[Trad Answers @TradAnswers]

1 A direct denial of infallibility of the OUM would be: "I deny that the OUM is infallible." That's a direct denial.
2 You didnt explain how the OUM teaches infallibly, nor did you prove that the teaching of Paul III was infallible by the OUM.
Many more reasons your example failed