This is what a canon lawyer who considers Prevost and Bergoglio to be popes says:
Rev. Gerald Murray, a New York canon lawyer, called the excommunication
of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X "a canonical mess" in an
interview with Raymond Arroyo (video below).
Two Canonical Mechanisms
Rev.
Murray distinguishes automatic (latae sententiae) penalties from
imposed (ferendae sententiae) penalties requiring a judicial or
administrative process.
Cardinal Victor "Tucho" Fernández did not
impose excommunication but declared that an automatic penalty had
already been incurred, since consecrating bishops without papal mandate
triggers excommunication under canon law.
Decree Excommunicates Only Six Bishops
Rev.
Murray's central criticism: the decree names only six bishops, while
the explanatory note refers to priests and laity. But a note cannot
legally expand a decree's scope.
The note calls priests "schismatics," yet the decree itself never declares them excommunicated.
Since
a penal decree must specify who committed which offense and when, and
this was omitted, Rev. Murray concludes FSSPX priests have not been
legally excommunicated.
They could theoretically have incurred an automatic penalty, but it hasn't been juridically established.
Lay Mass Attendance Insufficient for Excommunication
The
explanatory note warns against "formal adherence" to the schism, but
canon law requires an identifiable external act, not merely an interior
attitude.
Attending FSSPX Masses alone does not establish formal
adherence, and the decree never defines what conduct would actually
incur the penalty.
Explanatory Note Cannot Override Existing Law
Murray argues a note cannot create new penalties or revoke existing papal legislation.
Pope
Francis granted FSSPX priests faculties to hear confessions and witness
marriages. Only the Pope (or equal authority) can revoke those
faculties. The note therefore cannot invalidate FSSPX confessions or
marriages.
Ambiguity on "Full Communion"
Finally,
Murray notes the documents assume many laity already lack full
communion — but without heresy, schism, or a declared canonical penalty,
loss of communion cannot simply be presumed.
He concludes the documents confuse ecclesiological language with actual juridical status.
#newsPsyuzkmtft