Skip to main content

O Schism Where Is Thy Sting? - Mr. Louie Verrecchio

Archbishop Muller has made a statement in a newspaper that in spite of the lifting of the excommunication that the sacramental one remains de facto for the schism:

“The canonical excommunication due to the illicit [episcopal] ordination was lifted from the bishops, but the sacramental one remains, de facto, for the schism; because they have removed themselves away from communion with the Church.”
Personally, I find this very puzzling, where was the formal declaration of a schism (I know a number will point to Ecclesia Adflicta, however that is a problem for a number of reasons).

Frankly, Pope Benedict XVI (emeritus) stated that the SSPX is an internal matter and there are numerous other statements to demonstrate that the SSPX is not in schism - but a state of canonical irregularity.

Perhaps His Grace is simply not being exact in his wording.

Mr Verrecchio provides a good assessment of the situation.

P^3




Courtesy of Mr. Louie Verrecchio
Archbishop Gerhard Muller
Archbishop Gerhard Muller stirred the ecclessial pot last week when he said of the Society of St. Pius X in an interview with the Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera:
“The canonical excommunication due to the illicit [episcopal] ordination was lifted from the bishops, but the sacramental one remains, de facto, for the schism; because they have removed themselves away from communion with the Church.”
For those unaware, please allow me to state for the record that I’m not a member of the Society of St. Pius X; I’m just a Catholic guy who refuses to accept stones in the place of bread, regardless of who may be doing the serving.
With that in mind, I feel compelled to begin my commentary on this topic with a few reminders:
1. We’re talking about an interview in a secular newspaper.
2. Neo-con Catholics were quick to dismiss any number of Pope Francis scandalous remarks simply because they were only reportedly made in an interview with the mainstream media.
3. Archbishop Muller is the same reliable source who told us just a few weeks ago that the liturgical reform after Vatican II was a smashing success that “has proved an effective remedy against a godless culture.”
As for points 1 and 2, I have no doubt that Archbishop Muller believes the SSPX to be in schism; I mainly just wished to point out, as if anyone reading this is as yet unaware, that the neo-con Catholic ethos is inherently hypocritical.
Regarding point number 3, it should be rather obvious by now that when it comes to Archbishop Muller’s insights on matters Catholic, caveat emptor is the order of the day for the wise. As if to make that very point himself, Archbishop Muller stated in the very same interview with Corriere della Sera that Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez, the founder of liberation theology, “has always been orthodox.”
Now let’s consider the allegation of schism. According to Canon Law, schism is defined as follows:
“Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (cf Canon 751)
This definition presupposes that one has the Catholic wherewithal to consider that said “submission” is limited to those things that are consonant with the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine; i.e., it is not an absolute submission such that one is bound to submit to those things that are contrary to the Faith.
Yes, this would seem to be common sense of the most elementary kind, but in this age of diabolical disorientation, one cannot assume that all possess it.
Now, let’s consider more specifically that to which the SSPX has refused submission, summed up rather concisely in a statement made by the Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay:
“Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘Sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that.’”
To be perfectly blunt, if Pope Francis were to knock on my door right now to personally request that very same act of submission on my part, I’d offer him the utmost respect, a good cup of coffee and the opportunity to have his photograph taken with me in front of the fireplace, but I can assure you I would not submit apart from the very same kinds of clarifications the SSPX has insisted upon.
Nor should any Catholic, for the simple reason that what the pope is asking (and let us assume in charity that he somehow fails to realize as much) is that we deny the Lord. It really is that simple.
Anyone interested in exploring multiple examples of how the content of the Council is unworthy of being accepted carte blanche is welcome to scour the archives of this blog, but here’s just one example that is so patently obvious that it simply cannot be denied apart from denying revealed truth itself.
In the Declaration on the Church’s Relationship with Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, the Council states, “Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making both one in Himself.” (NA 4)
Bearing in mind that Nostra Aetate intends to address the Church’s relationship with Non-Christian religions, “in our time,” it is clear that one can either submit to the notion that this utter nonsense is “an integral part of Tradition,” or one can believe in the words of Our Blessed Lord who said, “He who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (cf Luke 10:16)
(A detailed examination of this unacceptable statement in Nostra Aetate can be read here.)
This much should be abundantly clear, one who is well-formed in the Catholic faith simply cannot submit to both Our Lord Jesus Christ and to a pope who demands submission to NA 4; it’s either one or the other.
As for me, I will serve the Lord and thereby reject any such illicit request for submission. Furthermore, I will by God’s grace gladly suffer the consequences no matter how bitter.
Archbishop Muller can cry “schism” all he wants, and the pope can chime in if he so chooses, but for those who understand what is truly at stake, there is no sting, just the blessedness that comes from being reviled and persecuted on account of Our Lord.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5b - How Did We Get Here??? ... A Continued Anlaysis using ChatGPT.

 + JMJ Part 5b How Did We Get Here??? So in the previous ChatGPT analysis the LLM ‘concluded’ that there was continuity in doctrine. So now we’re going to explore this element. There is some repetition but I don't have time right now to do a lot of editing.  I think instead we'll have a Part 5c where I try to pull it all together with some old fashioned human sense making. At the end point, I think the LLM collects an interesting if somewhat skewed perspective: The SSPX mapping hinges on this claim: That Vatican II affirms (at least implicitly) propositions that the Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemned. The broader Church response is: The same propositions are still rejected—but Vatican II is addressing different categories (political, pastoral, anthropological) rather than reversing doctrine. While the summary of the SSPX position seems close, that of the broader Church seems to be either an outright AI hallucination or a consensus point from the literature that it used...

News Roundup: April 30, 2026

 + JMJ I just realised that I haven't posted the latest Roundup ... and there is a lot in the roundup as the media storm around the SSPX continues! I also just noticed this article: European Conservative: Why the SSPX Bishop Decision Matters Far Beyond Church Politics (link) .  P^3 === Popes Past Present and Future Papal News and Views Cardinal Fernandez maintains that Francis is not dead- metaphorically Pope Leo XIV Reopens Amoris Laetitia File | FSSPX News Pope Leo: “We Do Not Agree with the Formalized Blessing of …Homosexual Couples” - OnePeterFive RORATE CÆLI: How Pope Leo is Reshuffling the Curia: Musical Chairs and Power Games RORATE CÆLI: A Giant Leap: The meaning of Cardinal Eijk’s Pontifical High Mass and the Rebirth of Dutch Catholicism RORATE CÆLI: A Sign of Continuity with the Pre-Francis Papacy: Pope to Wash Feet of Twelve Priests RORATE CÆLI: Vatican Blocks Continuity of Procedure of Beatification and Canonization of Argentine Bishop -- no new Satanellis Pope Leo...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5 - How Did We Get Here???

 + JMJ This is the fifth in this series and I think it may require a part b to show the controversial documents and teachings of the Pope post V2. P^3 Part 5 How Did We Get Here??? Introduction My family became ‘Traditional’ in early 1980’s and I didn’t realise until years later how early we entered the Fray. So the SSPX was slightly over a decade old when we started going to Mass. That is a young organization, as someone said at the consecrations “Aren’t you a little young to be a bishop?”, the response was, “That is something that time will change.” 1970: SSPX founded with diocesan approval (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre) 1974–1976: Vatican II disputes escalate; Lefebvre suspended a divinis 1988: Illicit episcopal consecrations → excommunications declared 2000: SSPX Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (signals openness to talks) 2009: Excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI 2011–2012: Doctrinal talks with CDF collapse 2015–2017: SSPX granted faculties for confessi...