Rome and SSPX 2026: Here We Go Again!!! (Part 1)

+

JMJ

Introduction

Given the recent consecration of Bishops by the SSPX, I think there is benefit in looking at the basis for claiming that consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate constitutes not just an act of disobedience but also a refusal of submission to the Pope and therefore an act of schism.

The gap or rather chasm between:

• Consecration sans mandatum as in 1988 listed under the section "Usurpation of Ecclesiastical Functions and Delicts in Their Exercise" and in 2026 under Offenses against the Sacraments (2026) Canons 1013,  1382/ad1988 | 1387/ad2026) 
• An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (Offenses Against the Faith and the Unity of the Church (Canon 1364)

I'm going to examine this gap and try to understand the principles the underpin how a person becomes a schismatic and cuts communion with the Church ... maybe along the way I'll also develop a deeper understanding of how a person becomes a heretic to the same effect.

A Little History

In 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops and was ... apparently excommunicated.  I have noted that the schism was absent from the canonical warning and believe that the addition of it to the Ecclesia Dei was an after the fact change in the law.

What follows is an examination of various elements in this crisis as it unfolded in the 1970's and as it continues today.

1958 Moral Theology

Looking at pre-conciliar moral theology I found that post-council the Catholic Church is surprisingly far less ... charitable to Traditional Catholics than to the Chinese or others who have consecrated Bishops without mandate - not to say the least about other's within the Catholic Church who deviate from even its most basic moral teachings.

In 1988, I intuitively saw the reaction of Pope St. John Paul II to the consecrations as a strange reaction considering everything else that is tolerated in the post-Council Catholic Church.  As noted by others, it seems that the only thing that cannot and shall not be tolerated is the Traditional Catholics ... especially the SSPX.

In later years, after some study, it was obvious that Canon 1364 lacks the action that a schismatic performs in order to incur the penalty.  Generally, a schismatic act is the refusal of submission to the Pope or refusal of communion with members of the Church subject to him. Thus for the letter of the law ... but for me the question is what constitutes a "... refusal of submission ..." which is manifestly different from an act of disobedience - which describes the consecration of bishops against the Pope's wishes in 1988 and 2026.

From this point I shall be delving in to the moral theology text titled: 

Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities
by Fathers John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan,

N.B. The Section numbers are specific to the text and any coincidence with Canon Law numbers is just that ... a coincidence.

The first relevant reference to schism in the text is found in section 826 that deals with heresy:

826. Heresy.--Heresy is defined as "an error manifestly opposed tofaith and assented to obstinately by one who had sincerely embraced the faith of Christ."

1. (a) It is called "error," that is, positive assent given to error, or dissent from truth.
2. Hence, those who merely act or speak as if they do not believe, but who internally do believe, are not heretics, although in the external forum they may fall under the presumption of heresy.
3. Similarly, those who have doubts or difficulties in matters of faith, but who do not allow these to sway their judgment, are not guilty of heresy, since they give no positive assent to error (see 842 sqq.).
4. Examples: 
1. Titus is internally convinced of the truth of the Church's teaching; but he attends Protestant services, says he does not believe the Trinity, refuses to make a profession of faith required by the Church, separates himself from obedience to the authorities of the Church, and calls himself an independent. 
1. By his former external acts he makes himself guilty of disobedience and falls under the suspicion of heresy, and by his last external act he incurs the guilt of schism; but, since internally he does not disbelieve, he is not a heretic.
2. Balbus has doubts before his mind from his reading or conversation, but he must immediately give his whole attention to a very pressing matter of business, and so gives neither assent nor dissent to the doubts. 
1. He is not guilty of heresy, since he formed no positive erroneous judgment.

So here we have an example of a external act - that of "... separating himself from obedience to the authorities and calls himself and independent." So while a 'schismatic' he is not a heretic.  Bringing to light the internal and external facets of making a judgement.

Looking further we come to the explanation on schism:

1364. Schism.--Schism (etymologically, a split, rent) is defined: "A voluntary separation of oneself from the unity of the Church."

1. (a) Schism is a voluntary separation, that is, a separation intended for its own sake. Every sinner in a sense separates himself from unity, for sin divides one from God (Is., lix. 2); but it is only the schismatic who expressly intends separation as such. Other sinners expressly intend some inordinate gratification. Moreover, schism is not the same thing as the state of the unbaptized, who have not separated themselves from unity, or of the excommunicated, whom the Church herself rejected from her body on account of some sin other than schism.
2. (b) Schism is a separation from unity, and so it differs from disbelief in unity (heresy) and dislike of unity (hatred). One may separate oneself from unity, although one believes in it. One may hate unity, and yet not separate oneself from it. Further, schism does not necessarily include affiliation with some schismatical body or the setting up of such a body.
3. (c) Schism is a separation of oneself from unity--that is, schism does not deprive the Church of the note of unity, but separates the schismatic himself from that unity which is in the Church. The schismatic may wish to take away the unity of the Church, but he accomplishes only the loss of union of himself with the Church.
4. (d) Schism is a separation from unity, that is, from fellowship in the mystical body of Christ (I Cor., xii). It is a refusal to recognize the authority of the head of the Church, or to communicate with those subject to him. Thus, schism differs from disobedience to the head of the Church or to particular prelates in the Church, for one may disobey orders and still recognize the authority of him who gives the orders.
5. (e) Schism is a separation from the unity of the Church, that is, of the spiritual kingdom of Christ on earth. Hence, rebellion in matters purely civil against a churchman who has civil authority, is not schism, but is unjust war or sedition. Schism is possible only in the Church Militant, for the members of the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant cannot fall away from unity

1366. Schism is voluntary in two ways: 

• (a) directly, when one intends schism itself, wishing to separate oneself from the head or members of the Church; 
• (b) indirectly, when one intends to do that from which schism follows. Thus, a person who prefers to act as if he were not a member of the Church rather than desist from his design of calling or presiding over an unauthorized Council, is guilty of schism, even though he does not directly intend separation from the Church. His case is similar to that of one who does not wish to kill his neighbor, and yet is determined to do something from which the neighbor's death will surely result.

1367. There is a threefold unity of the Church, as follows: 

• (a) unity in the theological virtues and in the Sacraments. All the faithful have the same faith, hope, charity, Sacraments, and thus there is a unity of similarity; 
• (b) unity between head and members. There is but one head of the Church, Christ in heaven and the Vicar of Christ an earth. Thus,there is a unity of subordination; 
• (c) unity between the members of the Church. All the faithful form but one society, and all are parts of one great whole. Thus, there is a collective unity.

1368. The sin of schism is committed in two ways (Canon 1325, n. 2).

• (a) It is committed by separation from the head of the Church on earth and the keystone of unity, that is, the Pope (Col., ii. 18, 19). The mere fact that a man is in rebellion against his bishop does not make him a schismatic, if he continues to acknowledge subjection to the Holy See. But such rebellion is often the first step towards schism. 
• (b) The sin of schism is also committed by separation from the members of the Church. Thus, one who refuses to communicate with Catholics in matters of faith or worship, choosing to act as an independent in those things, is a schismatic.

1369. Rejection of a decision or command of the Pope can happen in

three ways:

• (a) The reason for rejecting the decision may be the thing commanded, and not the one who gave the command, as when a person refuses to keep a fast or make a restitution commanded by the Pope, because he considers it too difficult. In this case the person is guilty of disobedience, but not of schism, even though he persists in his refusal; for he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the head of the Church.
• (b) The reason for rejecting the command may be the one who gave the command, considered as a private individual. As the Pope in his personal relations is not above human weakness, he may be swayed by hatred, prejudice or impulsiveness in issuing commands to or forming judgments about individual subjects. Hence, if we suppose that it is reasonably certain that a Pope is unfavorable to an individual, and that the latter accordingly is unwilling to have a case in which he is concerned fall under the immediate decision of that Pope, neither schism nor any other sin is committed; for it is natural that the person should wish to protect his own interests against unfairness.
• (c) The reason for rejecting the Pope's judgment may be the one who gave the command considered in his official capacity as Pope. In this case the person is guilty of schism, since he disobeys, not because the thing ordered is difficult or because he fears that the individual will be unjust, but because he does not wish to recognize the authority of Pope in him who issued the judgment.

1370. Comparison of Heresy and Schism.--

• (a) These sins are not the same, since heresy is opposed to faith, schism to charity. A person who really believes that the Church is one in its head and its body, may nevertheless out of pride, hatred, ambition, interest, self-sufficiency, etc., decide not to recognize the authority of the head, or not to communicate with the body. 
• (b) There is an intimate union between heresy and schism, since every heretic separates himself from the unity of faith, while schism is always found to adopt some heresy as a justification for its separation (I Tim., i. 6). Thus, the Eastern Schism soon trumped up charges of heresy against the Church, and history shows that schism almost invariably leads to a denial of papal primacy.

1371. The Opposition between Schism and Charity.--

• (a) Charity in itself is a spiritual bond of unity between the soul and God, for love is unitive. One who sins against this unity by offending God or his neighbor, is not thereby a schismatic, since one may hate an individual, for example, without hating the Church. 
• (b) Charity in its effect is the communion of all the faithful in one mystical body of Christ, for charity inspires the desire to love, not only individuals, but also the spiritual society formed of individuals in the entire world. One who sins against the unity and peace of the Church is a schismatic.

1372. The Sinfulness of Schism.--

• (a) Schism has a special seriousness,since it is opposed to the union and peace of mankind as a whole in the universal spiritual society which is the Church. It seems to be the greatest sin against the neighbor; for other sins are against the individual or against the multitude in temporal things, while this sin is against the multitude and in spiritual things. Scripture (cfr. I Cor., i. 10) and Tradition (e.g., St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine) energetically condemn the sin of schism.
• (b) Objectively, it is not as serious as unbelief, since unbelief is against God, schism against the neighbor; but subjectively, or in its consequences, it may be greater than unbelief, as when a  schismatic sins with greater contempt than an unbeliever, or is an occasion of more danger to others.

1373. Schism, like heresy, may be either formal or material (see 828).

• (a) Formal schism is that described above, in which one wishes to separate oneself from the unity of the Church, and is in culpable revolt. It is a mortal sin. 
• (b) Material schism is that in which one is in fact separated from the unity of the Church, but is in good faith. An example is the Great Schism of the West (1378-1417), when there were rival claimants for the Papacy, and invincible ignorance among the people as to who was the true head. This kind of schism is not a mortal sin.

1374. The Spiritual Powers of Schismatics.--

• (a) The power of Orders is not lost through schism, for that power is conferred through a consecration, and the consecrations of the Church are permanent. Hence, a schismatical priest can perform validly the acts that pertain to the power of Orders, such as the celebration of Mass and administration of the Sacraments; but he does not perform those acts lawfully, unless the Church permits, for the power of Orders should not be used by an inferior except as permitted by the superior.
• (b) The power of jurisdiction may be lost through schism, for that power depends on a commission received from a superior, which may be withdrawn by him. Hence, a schismatical priest deprived of jurisdiction could not absolve, excommunicate, grant indulgences, or perform other acts that pertain to the power of jurisdiction.

So ... although the pre-council era of the Catholic Church has been accused of being harsh, judgmental, and legalistic, we find the contrary.  Disobedience to an order from the Pope is in itself not a schismatic act provided that the reason for rejecting the order is the thing commanded and not the person who gave the command.

Conclusion from a pre-council Moral Theology Perspective

The SSPX considered that the continued existence of the SSPX is necessary in this crisis for the salvation of souls. Hence the reason why they don't attempt to provide the auxiliary bishops with jurisdiction - which would be a schismatic act.

1369 (a) The reason for rejecting the decision may be the thing commanded, and not the one who gave the command, as when a person refuses to keep a fast or make a restitution commanded by the Pope, because he considers it too difficult. In this case the person is guilty of disobedience, but not of schism, even though he persists in his refusal; for he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the head of the Church.

Tradicat: In the 1988 act of consecration without papal mandate, the Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that there was no desire to separate themselves and So - there is no objective evidence to support that the disobedience 'implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primary - constitutes a schismatic act."(Ecclesia Dei).  As noted above the pre-conciliar Church would not have excommunicated the SSPX for an act of disobedience.

Reference: 

SSPX.ca - What is the Canonical Status of the SSPX?

1988 Consecrations of Archbishop Lefevbvre

Tradicat: While this was a public inflection point in the conflict between Rome and the SSPX, the conflict had started in the 1970's when the SSPX decided to not say the New Mass (Novus Ordo Missae).

Canonical Warning

June 17, 1988

Canonical Warning

Congregation for Bishops to His Excellency Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle

Since on June 15, 1988⁷⁴ you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by Canon 1013 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latæ sententiæ reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with Canon 1382. I therefore entreat and beseech you in the name of Jesus Christ to weigh carefully what you are about to undertake against the laws of sacred discipline, and the very grave consequences resulting therefrom for the communion of the Catholic Church, of which you are a bishop.

Given at Rome, from the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, June 17, 1988.

By Mandate of the Supreme Pontiff,

Bernardin Card. Gantin
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

 

74. At a press conference held at Ecône.

Courtesy of SSPXasia: Canonical Warning Cardinal Gantin June 17, 1988

Declaration of Schism

July 1, 1988

Decree

Note that the decree from Rome regarding the episcopal consecrations is not the sentence of a judge, but rather a declaration that Canons 1364 and 1382 (of the 1983 Code of Canon Law) apply. It does not add to the motives brought forth in these Canons. Thus, if these motives do not apply in the present case because of the necessity in which the modernists have put the Church, then this decree is insufficient to make these Canons apply, since it does not remove the state of necessity.

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of June 17 last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364 §1, and Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above mentioned Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latæ sententiæ reserved to the Apostolic See.

Moreover, I declare that Archbishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop Emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication latæ sententiæ as envisaged by Canon 1364 §1.

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, July 1, 1988.

Bernardinus Card. Gantin

Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

Courtesy of SSPXasia: Declaration of Schism Cardinal Gantin July 1, 1988

Catholic Culture: Declaration of Schism Cardinal Gantin July 1, 1988

Ecclesia Dei

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei.html

APOSTOLIC LETTER "ECCLESIA DEI" OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO

1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)

2. This affliction was particularly felt by the Successor Peter to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church,(2) even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few. For every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the Cross for the salvation of all.

The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted, provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his Church.

3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

5. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.

To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.(7)

However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.(8)

To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church.

6. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree the following:

a) a Commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in the light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre;

b) this Commission is composed of a Cardinal President and other members of the Roman Curia, in a number that will be deemed opportune according to circumstances;

c) moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.(9)

7. As this year specially dedicated to the Blessed Virgin is now drawing to a close, I wish to exhort all to join in unceasing prayer that the Vicar of Christ, through the intercession of the Mother of the church, addresses to the Father in the very words of the Son: "That they all may be one!".

Given at Rome, at St. Peter's. 2 July 1988, the tenth year of the pontificate.

Joannes Paulus PP. II

(1)Cf. "Informatory Note" of 16 June 1988: L'Osservatore Romano. English edition, 27 June 1988, pp. 1-2.

(2)Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Pastor Æternus, cap. 3: DS 3060.

(3)Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 751.

(4)Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382.

(5)Vatican Council II. Const. Dei Verbum, n. 8. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dei Filius, cap. 4: DS 3020.

(6)Cf. Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16; Vatican Council I, Const. Pastor Æternus, cap. 3: DS 3060.

(7)Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 386; Paul VI. Apost. Exhort. Quinque iam anni, 8 Dec. 1970: AAS 63 (1971) pp. 97-106.

(8)Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1364.

(9)Cf. Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter Quattuor abhinc annos. 3 Oct. 1984: AAS 76 (1984) pp. 1088-1089.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html

1996 The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre

Eight years after the consecrations, the following note (source Catholic Culture for translation) was published.  Commentary follows.

Source: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1224

Original: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_19960824_vescovo-lefebvre_it.html

The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre

by Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts

NOTE: On the excommunication for schism which the adherents to the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre incur.

1 . From the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia dei" of 2nd July 1988 and from the Decree "Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre" of the Congregation for Bishops, of 1st July 1988, it appears above all that the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre was declared in immediate reaction to the episcopal ordinations conferred on 30th June 1988 without pontifical mandate (cf CIC, Can. 1382). All the same it also appears clear from the aforementioned documents that such a most grave act of disobedience formed the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic character.

2. In effect no. 4. of the Motu Proprio explains the nature of the "doctrinal root of this schismatic act," and no. 5. c) warns that a "formal adherence to the schism" (by which one must understand "the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre") would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364 para.1). Also the decree of the Congregation for Bishops makes explicit reference to the "schismatic nature" of the aforesaid episcopal ordinations and mentions the most grave penalty of excommunication which adherence "to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre" would bring with it.

3. Unfortunately, the schismatic act which gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree did no more than draw to a conclusion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner — with a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff — a process of distancing from hierarchical communion. As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.

4. One cannot furnish any judgement on the argumentation of Murray's thesis (see below) because it is not known, and the two articles which refer to it appear confused. However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances. (cf CIC, can. 1323) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of "serving" the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.

5. As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who "adhere formally" to the said schismatic movement. Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:

a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church),

b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).

6. In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above (n.5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence.

7. On the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one's own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice the result can be that it is more difficult to judge their situation. One must take account above all of the person's intentions, and the putting into practice of this internal disposition. For this reason the various situations are going to be judged case by case, in the competent forums both internal and external.

8. All the same, it will always be necessary to distinguish between the moral question on the existence or not of the sin of schism and the juridical-penal question on the existence of the delict of schism, and its consequent sanction. In this latter case the dispositions of Book V1 of the Code of Canon Law (including Cann.1323-1324) will be applied.

9. It does not seem advisable to make more precise the requirements for the delict of schism (but one would need to ask the competent Dicastery, cf. Ap. Const. "Pastor Bonus", art 52). One might risk creating more problems by means of rigid norms of a penal kind which would not cover every case, leaving uncovered cases of substantial schism, or having regard to external behaviour which is not always subjectively schismatic.

10. Always from the pastoral point of view it would also seem opportune to recommend once again to sacred pastors all the norms of the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" with which the solicitude of the Vicar of Christ encouraged to dialogue and has provided the supernatural and human means necessary to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrians to full ecclesial communion.

Vatican City, 24th August 1996.

---

Comment — Although dated August 1996, presumably its publication early in 1998 was in view, at least in part, of the forthcoming tenth anniversary of the Consecrations and the issuing of the Motu Proprio and Decree.

1. While initiatives taken under their auspices have had a positive impact, with a number of new religious institutes, and flourishing vocations, now in full communion with the Holy See, and increasingly welcomed by diocesan bishops in some parts of the world, it is also true that there are many places where little attention has been given to its implementation.
2. Moreover while the Lefebvrist movement has had some set backs, the number of adherents has not diminished significantly. A recent book to mark twenty five years of the Society of St Pius X in Britain (R.Warwick, The Living Flame, London 1997) indicates that there are some twenty Lefebvrist church buildings in Great Britain at present, with some 2000 regular worshippers. In the United States the situation is more extensive and much more varied, with many independent priests and chapels, as well as more extremely sedevacantist groups such as the Society of St Pius X (sic - Ed. note) and the Mount St Michael Community.
3. The question of apostolic succession has also become more complex. The fissiparous nature of such groups means that not all their orders are derived from Archbishop Lefebvre. Some, having departed from the Society of St Pius X, have obtained orders or episcopal consecration from Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, or his successors, Bishop Alfred Mendez (formerly of Arecibo), or from Old Catholic and similar sources. For details of the American scene one should consult M. Cuneo. The Smoke of Satan, New York 1997, a book which is informative if irritatingly discursive.
4. Supporters of the Society of St Pius X frequently distribute leaflets containing highly selective or tendentious quotations. One, for example, claims that the Society is neither schismatic nor excommunicated. Generally the line of argument is that since Archbishop Lefebvre was not schismatic, he was not excommunicated, and a fortiori neither were any of his followers.
5. The leaflet quotes Cardinal Castillo Lara to the effect that consecrating a bishop without the Pope's permission is not in itself a schismatic act. It continues that merely to consecrate bishops, without intending to set up an alternative hierarchy in the jurisdictional sense is not an act of schism. Several canonists are quoted as endorsing these views, Count Neri Capponi, an advocate accredited to the Signatura, Professor Geringer of Munich University, Fr. Patrick Valdini, Professor of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris, and Fr. Gerald Murray who presented his thesis on the subject at the Gregorian University.
6. Reference is also made to the decision of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, dated 28th June 1993, that the excommunication imposed on followers of Archbishop Lefebvre on 1st May 1991 by Bishop Ferraio of Hawaii was invalid since there had been no schismatic acts in the strict sense. One cannot be certain as to the accuracy of such quotations, at least in terms of completeness. For example the decree mentioned added a rider that there were other grounds on which the Bishop could take action.
7. I am not aware whether Fr.Murray's thesis has been published, but it would appear that the Council had been sent not the thesis but two articles published in the Fall issue of "Latin Mass" magazine. The first was an interview with Fr .Murray conducted by Roger McCaffrey (pp.50-55). The second was a summary of the thesis prepared by Steven Terenzio (pp.55-61).
8. Murray's first line of argument appears to be that the lay followers of Society of St Pius X do not incur the excommunication, because only an external violation of a law or precept can be subject to a canonical penalty (art.cit. p.56), and there must be grave imputability. The warnings contained in the Motu Proprio give no specific indications as to what constitutes "adherence," making liability to penalty at least open to doubt.
9. A second line of argument is that the Archbishop denied schism, and that simple disobedience does not constitute schism, only systematic and habitual refusal of dependence.
10. A third line of argument is that an erroneous view that necessity justified his action would have made his action culpable, but removed canonical malice and therefore liability to excommunication (canon 1323 7o). His argument in effect is that the provisions of the 1983 Code are so exigent for imputability to be proved >and a penalty incurred, that the Archbishop and his followers escape by virtue of the very postconciliar legislation they so oppose.
11. "On the other hand, Canon 209 prescribes: 'Para. 1. Christ's faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions. Para.2 They are to carry out with great diligence their responsibilities towards both the universal Church and the particular Church to which by law they belong.' It is obvious that a lay person who exclusively frequents chapels directed by suspended priests of the Society of St Pius X, which operate without the permission of either the local or the universal Church, is not, in fact, at the very least, living in external communion with the Church. Thus we have the anomalous situation of a group of faithful who are in fact in some real way living apart from real communion with the Church, but who are almost certainly not subject to the canonical penalties intended to discourage and punish such behaviour." (cited from Terenzio, art. cit. p.61).
12. The Note was clearly prepared as a reply to the arguments of this kind (cf. n.4). The suggestion that there might be any doubt cast upon the excommunication declared by the Congregation for Bishops in the case of the Archbishop and those he consecrated is given short shrift.
13. It might be worth remembering that the penalty was raised to excommunication because of the creation of the Patriotic Catholic Association in China, and consecration of Bishops without a mandate. The 1917 Code (canon 2370) had provided only for suspension.
14. Historically the situation had arisen in Latin America when difficult travel conditions had delayed the arrival of the mandate, and a planned consecration had gone ahead without it, but with no schismatic intent. Here the situation was quite different, and although the intention might not have been to set up an alternative jurisdiction, only to provide for the sacraments, de facto that is what was already happening. Moreover since the protocol originally signed by Archbishop Lefebvre actually provided for the consecration of one Bishop, necessity could hardly be argued.
15. The Note then turns to those whose excommunication has not been declared; the clergy and faithful associated with the Society of St Pius X. The Council prescind from any decision that might be made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but sets out two general legal criteria that would be required for "formal adherence."
16. The first is an internal criterion, one of intention. An external violation of a law cannot incur a penalty where there is inculpable ignorance, inadvertence or error with regard to violating the law (can. 1323 2°). Equally the penalty must be reduced where the person was unaware of the penalty, through no fault of their own, or lacked full imputability (can. 1324 9° & 10°). There is a requirement of schismatic intention, that is freely and consciously accepting the substance of the schism, that is putting one's personal choice above obedience to the Pope. Generally, this will be characterised by an habitual stance contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.
17. The second criterion is external, the external effect given to this choice. The most obvious sign of this is to attend solely and exclusively those celebrations conducted by followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, and eschewing those of the mainstream Church, not only local Bishop and clergy, but, for example, those legitimately using the 1962 liturgical books, such as the Fraternity of St Peter.
18. To a degree the Council is accepting the argumentation presented by Fr.Murray in that an external violation of the law is required not simply a supposed internal attitude of mind, and that more is required subjectively than attendance even habitually at Lefebvrist centres or celebrations. The latter is compatible with an internal disposition which still accepts the authority of the Pope. However, it parts company with him in that it argues that the disobedience involved in aligning oneself with the Lefebvrists itself implies a schismatic intention, even though one might not formally reject the authority of the Pope or local Bishop. Such a position is logically inconsistent, and one must ask what is the prevalent intention in a particular case.
19. The Note points out that one must distinguish between the moral question of the sin of schism, and the legal question of a delict and its imputability. Once there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed until it appears otherwise (can. 1321 para 3). The onus is on the person to establish elements removing or reducing imputability. In the internal forum there is no such presumption. This means that in the case of lay people, their position will often be difficult to discern. In this situation one must have a mind to the liberty guaranteed by canon 18. In the case of clergy, their external involvement in the ministry in the ambit of the schismatic movement is itself sufficient evidence that both internal and external criteria for formal adherence have been fulfilled. However, such a censure is undeclared and therefore subject to the limits mentioned in canons 1331 and 1335.
20. While the document speaks of Lefebvrists, it does not refer by name to the Society of St Pius X, and so the criteria should be applied also to other similar groups that are associated with the Archbishop's followers, religious communities, the dissident clergy of the Diocese of Campos in Brazil, but also others, such as those mentioned above, who hold similar positions, even though their hierarchs may not have been declared excommunicated.
21. It does not apply to those who belong to groups whose position has been regularised by the Commission Ecclesia Dei, or established by the authority of the local Bishop of Scranton on 24th May 1998.
22. The position of 'freelance' clerics, retired or otherwise released from their Diocese, but not subject to any other penalty, who are operating chapels without reference to the local Bishop, or in defiance of his known wishes would have to be judged on their individual merits. In some cases it may be the Bishop rather than the cleric who is not open to dialogue about regularising their situation in accordance with the provisions of the Motu Proprio. The same may be true for groups of lay people seeking spiritual provision in the form of chaplaincy, and who have availed of the services of a priest or bishop whose situation is irregular.
23. While there might be a direct approach to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the latter is reluctant to force Bishops' hands and prefers to work by persuasion.

15th July 1998

Rev. Gordon F.Read

Fr. Michael Brown, Assistant Judicial Vicar, Hexham & Newcastle Diocesan Tribunal

(Fr. Michael Brown was not one of the authors of the British Commentary on the text, rather he was the one who put it into e-text and sent it out to the other Traditional canonists on the net.)

2000 Pilgrimage of Tradition

From 2000 to 2014, after a large pilgrimage led by the SSPX, relations with Rome were reignited and this resulted in prelates in charge making the statement that 

2009 Remission of Excommunication

At the request of Bishop Fellay, then Superior General of the SSPX, Pope Benedict XVI removed the excommunications:

CONGREGATION FOR BISHOPS

DECREE REMITTING

THE EXCOMMUNICATION "LATAE SENTENTIAE"

OF THE BISHOPS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X

 

 

In a letter of 15 December 2008 addressed to Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", Mons. Bernard Fellay writing also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on 30 June 1988 requested once again the removal of the excommunication latae sententiae formally declared by a Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation for Bishops on 1 July 1988. In his letter, Mons. Fellay stated, among other things, that "we continue firmly resolute in our desire to remain Catholics and to put all our strength at the service of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept her teachings in a filial spirit. We firmly believe in the primacy of Peter and in his prerogatives, and for this reason the current situation causes us much suffering".

His Holiness Benedict XVI in his paternal concern for the spiritual distress which the parties concerned have voiced as a result of the excommunication, and trusting in their commitment, expressed in the aforementioned letter, to spare no effort in exploring as yet unresolved questions through requisite discussions with the authorities of the Holy See in order to reach a prompt, full and satisfactory solution to the original problem has decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, resulting from their episcopal consecration.

This act signifies a desire to strengthen reciprocal relations of trust, and to deepen and stabilize the relationship of the Society of St Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, coming at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also meant to be a sign which promotes the Universal Church's unity in charity, and removes the scandal of division.

It is hoped that this step will be followed by the prompt attainment of full communion with the Church on the part of the whole Society of St Pius X, which will thus bear witness to its genuine fidelity and genuine recognition of the Magisterium and authority of the Pope by the proof of visible unity.

On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on 1 July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect.

Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, 21 January 2009 

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re

Prefect

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html

This resulted in a letter of explanation being issued when an uproar ensued.

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI

TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION

OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE

 

Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry!

The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope’s concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church.

An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church’s path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council – steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which – as in the days of Pope John Paul II – has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.

Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world’s Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.

I hope, dear Brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren’t other things perhaps more important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action. The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper Room in the clearest of terms: "You… strengthen your brothers" (Lk 22:32). Peter himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: "Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet 3:15). In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love which presses "to the end" (cf. Jn 13:1) – in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.

Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light – this is interreligious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love "to the end" has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity – this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est.

So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.

Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide – even in turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many Bishops who have lately offered me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the faithful who in these days have given me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter. May the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the prayer that rises up instinctively from my heart at the beginning of this Lent, a liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter.

With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain

Yours in the Lord,

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI 

From the Vatican, 10 March 2009

2014 Not-Full Communion

In the past ... 2014, I asked two question of the CDF and received a direct reply  ... "not full communion".

First the question:

Second the answer:

So in 2014, twenty-six (26) years after the consecrations the answer to a direct question was simply "... not in full communion with the Catholic Church ...".

Reference: Tradicat - Is the SSPX in Schism?

2015 April 15 - SSPX Doctrinal Declaration

The Doctrinal Preamble was apparently leaked by the La Sapiniere in French and translated into English by someone at The Recusant.  It quickly was posted all over the internet and I first found it on SuscipeDomine ( https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=1738.0  ).

I did an analysis of it here: Tradicat Doctrinal Preamble April 15, 2012 vs Protocol 1988 (link).

A year ago, I had a talk with Bishop Fellay over dinner and the topic of the Doctrinal Preamble came up. Publicly, he had indicated that he had been led to believe that Pope Benedict XVI had accepted his Doctrinal Declaration.  To us he said that when he arrived at the Vatican, he found that someone had added two footnotes.  He had told them that if they change one word, then he would not be able to proceed as it represented the absolute furthest that the SSPX could go. Two footnotes, one of the New Mass and one, I believe, on Tradition (my memory fails me ...).  Two footnotes that, he said, changed the entire document.

It was unacceptable and that's where it stayed, the document is still there ... hopefully it will be revisited.

Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Preamble

Presented to Rome

15th April, 2012

Translated from the text on La Sapiniere.

1. I . We promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter, and head of the body of bishops.
2. II. We declare that we accept the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church in the substance of Faith and Morals, adhering to each doctrinal affirmation in the required degree, according to the doctrine contained in No.25 of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council.(1)
3. III
1. We declare that we accept the doctrine regarding the Roman Pontiff and regarding the college of bishops, with the Pope as its head, which is taught by the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I and by the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican II, chapter 3 (de constitutione hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de episcopatu), explained and interpreted by the nota explicativa praevia in this same chapter.
2. We recognise the authority of the Magisterium to which alone is given the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, in written form or handed down (2) in fidelity to Tradition, recalling that "the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter in order for them to make known, through revelation, a new doctrine, but so that with His assistance they may keep in a holy and expressly faithful manner the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the Faith."(3)
3. Tradition is the living transmission of revelation "usque as nos"(4) and the Church in its doctrine, in its life and in its liturgy perpetuates and transmits to all generations what this is and what She believes. Tradition progresses in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost(5), not as a contrary novelty(6), but through a better understanding of the Deposit of the Faith(7).
4. The entire tradition of Catholic Faith must be the criterion and guide in understanding the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which, in turn, enlightens - in other words deepens and subsequently makes explicit -  certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present within itself or not yet conceptually formulated(8).
5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, must be understood in the light of the whole, uninterrupted Tradition, in a manner coherent with the truths previously taught by the Magisterium of the Church, without accepting any interpretation of these affirmations whatsoever that would expose Catholic doctrine to opposition or rupture with Tradition and with this Magisterium.
6. That is why it is legitimate to promote through legitimate discussion the study and theological explanations of the expressions and formulations of Vatican II and of the Magisterium which followed it, in the case where they don't appear reconcilable with the previous Magisterium of the Church(9).
7. We declare that we recognise the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention to do what the Church does according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramentary Rituals legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II.
8. In following the guidelines laid out above (III,5), as well as Canon 21 of the Code of Canon Law, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by John-Paul II (1983) and in the Code of Canon Law of the Oriental Churches promulgated by the same pontiff (1990), without prejudice to the discipline of the Society of Saint Pius X, by a special law.

Notes--

1. (1) Cf. the new formula for the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity for assuming a charge exercised in the name of the Church, 1989; cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 749,750, §2; 752; CCEO canon 597; 598, 1 & 2; 599.
2. (2) Cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis encyclical.
3. (3) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, Dz. 3070.
4. (4) Council of Trent, Dz. 1501: "All saving truth and rules of conduct (Matt. 16:15) are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand."
5. (5) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 8 & 9, Denz. 4209-4210.
6. (6) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3020: "Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore [...] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3]."
7. (7) Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz. 3011; Anti-modernist Oath, no. 4; Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis, Dz 3886; Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 10, Dz. 4213.
8. (8) For example, like the teaching on the sacraments and the episcopacy in Lumen Gentium, no. 21.
9. (9) There is a parallel in history in the Decree for the Armenians of the Council of Florence, where the porrection of the instruments was indicated as the matter of the sacrament of Order. Nevertheless theologians legitimately discussed, even after this decree, the accuracy of such an assertion. Pope Pius XII finally resolved the issue in another way. 

Conclusions Part 1

Looking at Moral Theology Circa 1958, it is clear that the disobedience of a direct order from a superior does not qualify as a schismatic act and the applicable code remains outside the section dealing with Church Unity.

In this case the person is guilty of disobedience, but not of schism, even though he persists in his refusal; for he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the head of the Church.

It is manifest that the SSPX did not reject the head of the Church in 1988 or 2026.

In spite of the lack of references in the canonical warning in 1988 to canon related to the Unity of the  Church, this immediately appears in the Vatican's declarations.

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of June 17 last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364 §1, and Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

The explanation of the appearance of the charge of schism follows in the letter Ecclesia Dei.

In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.

There is a disconnect between the stated intentions and dispositions of the persons performing the act and the "... implication in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy ...". This is where the "case of the imaginary schism..." emerged.

Eight years later a paper was released that discusses how the act implies a schismatic act. The conclusion, aligned with Cardinal Lara's, is that there as been a gradual drawing away from communion.  In other words, the schismatic act happened before 1988. Further that the exclusive attendance at Masses of the SSPX denotes a drawing away from communion.

Then in 2009, Pope Benedict wrote that "An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism ...", undermining the conclusion that it is a schismatic act.

What is disconcerting is that the early documents state that the consecrations were the schismatic act, while later opinions and statements reframe it as the culmination of a multi-year schismatic act that is implied as opposed to declared. Then as time passes it reverts back to its canonical state.

Then in 2014, we have the CDF letter of 2014 indicating that the SSPX is simply not in full communion. Also in 2026, the canonical warning etc referenced and was supported by the results of 1988 as well as 1996 (cited explicitly by Card. Fernandez). 

All of this supports the conclusion that a schismatic act was implied contradicting the actual stated intentions and actions of the SSPX leadership.

The response from Rome is simply restating this earlier conclusion while ignoring the progression that occurred in the intervening years. I feel that somewhere in the Vatican at least one person, wanted the SSPX to have the label of schismatic in order to impact the entire SSPX as well as any of Traditional Catholics.