Transalpine Redemptorist founder excommunicated for schism
Fr. Michael Mary Sim, founder of the Transalpine Redemptorists, was excommunicated after a diocesan canonical process found him guilty of schism. The excommunication followed his illicit episcopal consecration on July 25 2026 on the private island of Papa Stronsay in Scotland, performed without papal mandate. Bishop Hugh Gilbert of Aberdeen announced the penalties, citing Sim’s adoption of sedevacantism and the unauthorized consecration as the reasons. The consecration was led by Canadian sedevacantist Bishop Pierre Roy, with Brazilian and Spanish co‑consecrators, all tracing their episcopal lineage back to Archbishop Ngô Đình Thục.
2 months ago
The founder of the traditionalist Congregation of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer – known as the Transalpine Redemptorists – has been declared excommunicated after a diocesan canonical process found him guilty of schism and other grave offenses. 1
The community emerged in 1988 from the Society of St. Pius X, combining devotion to the Traditional Latin Mass with the spirituality of St. Alphonsus Liguori. 1 After Pope Benedict XVI broadened access to the Latin Mass, the group reconciled with the Holy See in 2008 and was erected as a diocesan institute in 2012 by Bishop Hugh Gilbert of Aberdeen. 1
In October 2025 the Transalpine Redemptorists issued an open letter rejecting several documents of Pope Francis, a stance the bishop described as incompatible with Catholic unity. 1 The community’s founder, Fr. Michael Mary Sim, later adopted sedevacantist positions, declaring post‑conciliar popes “papal pretenders” in a May 2 declaration signed by 28 members. 1
On July 25 2026, Fr. Michael Mary Sim was consecrated as a bishop on the private island of Papa Stronsay without papal mandate. 1 The principal consecrator was Canadian sedevacantist Bishop Pierre Roy, assisted by Brazilian Bishop Rodrigo Henrique Ribeiro da Silva and Spanish Bishop Fernando Altamira Alaníz, all tracing their lineage to Archbishop Ngô Đình Thục. 1 The ceremony was live‑streamed and sparked immediate condemnation from the Diocese of Aberdeen. 1
Bishop Gilbert announced that Fr. Michael Mary Sim had been found guilty of schism, resulting in excommunication, dismissal from his role as superior, and a prohibition on celebrating Mass or administering sacraments. 1 The diocese informed the Roman Curia, noting that the penalties are “medicinal” and may be lifted if the offender repents. 1
Fr. Michael Mary Sim, now 72 and a New Zealand native, defended the community’s trajectory, criticizing perceived liturgical changes and labeling the hierarchy “political.” 1 Bishop Gilbert urged the faithful to avoid contact with the group and called for repentance, while diocesan priests now celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass independently of the Transalpine Redemptorists. 1
These developments underscore a deepening rift between the Transalpine Redemptorists and the Catholic hierarchy under Pope Leo XIV, highlighting ongoing tensions over liturgical tradition and authority. 1*
Excommunication raises questions on schism, sedevacantism, and episcopal authority
Excommunication for schism is not merely a “disciplinary slap”: in Catholic law it reflects a break in the Church’s visible communion—especially the refusal of submission to, or communion with, the Supreme Pontiff. That break then directly affects the meaning and lawful exercise of episcopal authority, and it also helps clarify why movements that reject the Pope’s legitimacy (often called sedevacantism) raise such serious canonical and ecclesial questions—though the Church would still judge each case by relevant facts, obstinacy, and formal adhesion.
Canon law gives a precise definition:
“schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
So the center of gravity is not first of all “having a disagreement,” but refusing communion/submission with the Pope and those in communion with him.
For someone who is apostate, heretic, or schismatic, canon law provides:
“An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
“Latae sententiae” means the penalty is incurred by the very fact of committing the delict under the conditions of the law (i.e., not necessarily waiting for a later imposed sentence).
The Church describes excommunication as:
“a medicinal, spiritual penalty… intended… not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back”
It therefore expresses the Church’s pastoral concern to move the offender back into full communion.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains key practical consequences:
The Dicastery for Legislative Texts further clarifies how, for excommunicated persons, the effects under can. 1331 §1 apply “ipso iure” once the latae sententiae penalty is incurred, including prohibitions to:
At the same time, even excommunication does not erase baptismic identity—rather, it breaks full communion and spiritual participation in the Church’s visible society.
Your question also touches episcopal authority because schism is not only a theological dispute—it is a rupture in communion that necessarily impacts who can lawfully govern.
Catholic doctrine distinguishes:
The same Catholic Encyclopedia notes that while a consecrated bishop has the fullness of Order, the exercise of rights is tied to jurisdiction.
The Catechism teaches that lawful episcopal ordination requires special intervention of the Bishop of Rome because he is:
“the supreme visible bond of the communion of the particular Churches”
So episcopal authority is meant to be exercised within communion with the successor of Peter.
A Dicastery document on illegitimate episcopal consecrations without necessary apostolic mandate states plainly:
It also ties the issue to Vatican II’s teaching that if the Successor of Peter refuses or denies apostolic communion, bishops cannot be treated as properly assumed to episcopal office.
And it explains that reactions from the faithful and scandal/confusion require bishops involved to recover authority through “signs of communion and of penance.”
“Sedevacantism” (in its common form) claims that there is no legitimate Pope. In practice, it typically entails not submitting to the currently reigning Pope and refusing communion with those subject to him—at least externally. The definition of schism is exactly that kind of refusal: denial of submission or refusal of communion with those subject to the Pope.
So the concept behind sedevacantism is canonically adjacent to schism.
The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that:
That matters because canon penalties like can. 1364 §1 are about delict, which presupposes real culpability (obstinacy, contumacy, and the legal conditions).
From Catholic sources given here:
Because none of the supplied sources directly analyze “sedevacantism” by name, a fully specific canonical classification of that movement would go beyond what is directly documented here; however, the definition of schism provides the doctrinal-canonical framework into which such a movement must be examined.
The sources are explicit that the faithful must not “communicate in sacris” with schismatics (including receiving sacraments from them or assisting in their temples).
The Church insists that the one Church exists in visible communion with Peter’s successor and bishops in union with him, and that communion with the Apostolic See is treated as the “root” and “matrix” of Catholic unity.
Where episcopal consecrations or governance reject communion with the Roman Pontiff, the Church interprets that as a grave rupture of discipline and communion.
Catholic teaching and canon law interpret excommunication for schism as a visible rupture of communion with the Supreme Pontiff—defined as refusal of submission or communion. That rupture directly affects episcopal authority because bishops are to exercise governance within the communion whose visible bond is the Roman Pontiff; episcopal acts outside that communion (especially illegitimate consecrations without mandate) are treated as grave discipline-breaking events. Movements like sedevacantism raise the same foundational issue—refusal of submission/communion—but whether anyone is canonically guilty of schism depends on the legal conditions of obstinacy and formal refusal.