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

Rome and SSPX - Version 2026 Part 2

 + JMJ Part 2 Detailed Synopsis and Timeline (ChatGPT) At this point, I took the shortcut of uploading all of my previous links and the latest SSPX and Rome links to ChatGPT. This way we’ll see how ChatGPT interprets the world as presented on the internet. P^3 Briefing Memo Subject: Rome–SSPX Relations and Planned Episcopal Consecrations (July 1, 2026) Prepared for: Ecclesial / Academic / Media Briefing Date: February 2026 Issue Overview The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has announced its intention to consecrate new bishops on July 1, 2026 , potentially without a papal mandate . The Holy See has acknowledged ongoing talks with the SSPX and stated its desire to avoid rupture, but has not granted approval nor outlined canonical consequences. The situation revives unresolved tensions dating to 1988 and raises questions about schism, authority, and doctrinal continuity. Background Founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX seeks to preserve pre-Vat...

Schism

There is some question as to whether the Pope can be in actual schism as per the Cardinal Torquemada: Citing the doctrine of Pope Innocent III, Torquemada further teaches:  "Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed' . . . " [Cited from A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism, Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.D., M. Div. (2nd edition, St. Francis Press, India) p. 29. The full quotation from Cardinal Torquemada reads, "By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ despite the fact that he is head of the Church, for above all, the unity of the Church is dependent on its relationship with Christ. The Pope can separate himself from Christ either by disobeying the law of Christ, or by commanding som...

SSPX / DICI: Communiqué of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X concerning the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure.

+ JMJ The following is the communiqué of the SSPX regarding the Bishop Williamson's consecration of Fr. Faure. As a follow-up to this article ,  I would like to highlight the rationale for denouncing the consecration. Communiqué of the General House of the Society of St. Pius X concerning the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure. On March 19, 2015, Bishop Richard Williamson performed the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure at the Benedictine Monastery of the Holy Cross in Nova Friburgo, Brazil. Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure have not been members of the Society of St. Pius X since 2012 and 2014, respectively, because of their violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities. According to them, such contacts were incompatible with the apostolic work of Archbishop Lefebvre.(1) The Society of St. Pius X regrets sincerely that this spirit of opposition has led to an episcopal consecration. In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre had c...

Bishop Huonder, SSPX in Schism? - Nope, Consecration of Holy Oils - Update 1

 + JMJ  So Bishop Huonder is in the news for two reasons.  First, his 'Testimony' concerning Pope Francis etc. This was received as a nice reinforcement by Trads (SSPX and others).  Of course, there are those that now are demanding an apostolic investigation.  Yawn, been here before.  This was predictable as other bishops who have followed the same path came to the same conclusions.  It is the way. Second, he celebrated the Chrism Mass and blessed the Holy Oils for use in the SSPX's European chapels and ceremonies.  This caused a stir amongst some Trads who are locked in one or the other statements made by either Archbishop Lefebvre or others. I received two versions of a question regarding this event: Hi Tradical Do you have any comments about doubtful oils in SSPX europe by +Huonder (NO Bishop not conditionally consecrated)? God Bless Hi Tradical Any thoughts on Huonder oil, not conditionally ordained and consecrated by SSPX bishops? God Bless M...