[As usual, Rorate publishes different views and perspectives, in order to promote healthy debate. Publishing a guest piece does not mean editorial agreement, or disagreement, with it.]
The Canonical Status of the Society of Saint Pius X: A Theological and Canonical Assessment
by Brother Linus Pio (pen name of a Religious Brother)
Introduction
The canonical status of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) has long generated controversy and caused much misunderstanding among the faithful. With additional episcopal consecrations forthcoming, the need for a clear assessment of the situation is more urgent than ever. This monograph covers several essential topics necessary for such an assessment: the nature of episcopal consecrations, the necessity of receiving a mission from the Church, the supposed unjust excommunications, the fulfillment of the Sunday Obligation, and separation from the true Church. These topics will be examined utilizing traditional theology and canonical jurisprudence.
On a personal note, this study is the fruit of several years of research conducted while completing seminary training. About two years ago, many people started asking for my opinion regarding the SSPX and their status in the Church. Having grown up attending the Latin Mass, I had some familiarity with the issue, but I decided to take a deeper dive from a more theological and canonical perspective. After studying the matter for several months, I was surprised not only by how clear the answer really was, but also by how obscured it had become by emotional appeals and online polemics. The purpose of the study is to present what I found as systematically as possible, in the hope that it may be of service to those who might be confused about this very important and timely issue.
I. Episcopal Consecrations
Perhaps the best way to begin would be to discuss the 1988 episcopal consecrations performed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the history leading up to them. A great deal hinges on this issue: if he acted wrongly in this matter, he acted under a false assumption of authority, without the actual right to do so.
Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Society of Saint Pius X in November 1970 as an ad experimentum pious union under Bishop François Charrière of Fribourg, Switzerland. Archbishop Lefebvre intended to train young men to offer the Old Mass with the approval of the diocesan ordinary. Things began well, but four years later, after making his famous "1974 Declaration" against "the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies," he began to be viewed with suspicion by the Holy See. The following year, his group was suppressed, both by the new local ordinary and by Pope Paul VI himself, in forma specifica.
Despite this suppression, and in disobedience contrary to the canonical warning that accompanied it, Archbishop Lefebvre went on to ordain priests without permission. On July 23, 1976, due to his disobedience, he was suspended a divinis, depriving him of the right to exercise the priesthood. These ecclesial actions, regardless of whether one agrees with them or not, are perfectly within the realm of the Supreme Pontiff's authority. As the First Vatican Council teaches:
"Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church… So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema." (Vatican I, Fourth Session, Chapter Three)
Over the next twelve years, Archbishop Lefebvre increasingly separated himself from the authority of the Catholic Church. Briefly, a few examples of his actions will illustrate this point:
— He disregarded the Church's request to revoke his 1974 Declaration. — He ignored the effects of his lawful suspension, continuing to act as a bishop when suspended a divinis. — He disregarded warnings and ordained priests without permission. — He sent priests to minister without incardination or mission, usurping the authority of local bishops. — He sent priests to minister who were under censure. — He ignored the lawful suspension from the exercise of holy orders. — He preached in dioceses without permission from the local bishop. — He promoted public hostility to the popes and the Holy See, referring to both Paul VI and John Paul II as "antichrists." — He publicly propagated errors (as will be explained later). — He went on to found a schismatic tribunal that claims the authority to annul marriages and religious vows. — He opened chapels, seminaries, "religious communities," and schools all over the world.
Despite all this, John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sought to reconcile him with the Holy See. Through Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre was offered a bishop for his Society on August 15, 1988. As part of this agreement, the SSPX would have been granted the status of a personal prelature with a worldwide canonical mission, a bishop whom the Holy Father would choose from a list of names presented by Archbishop Lefebvre, and the ability to incardinate priests into their society. Additionally, Rome was to establish a commission to investigate the validity of the laity's past reception of the sacraments from SSPX priests and, by decree, resolve problems associated with marriages celebrated by the priests of the Society without proper delegation. This agreement would have meant the further regularization of the Latin Mass as a personal prelature with the official blessing of Holy Mother Church. Archbishop Lefebvre signed the proposed agreement on May 5, 1988, but then reneged on it the very next day. "Your efforts," he wrote, "are to join us to the Conciliar Church." After this, and despite being warned several times directly by the Supreme Pontiff and the Holy See not to proceed with what, according to John Paul II, "cannot but appear as a schismatic act," as well as the conclusion of his advisors that "to play off the unity of faith against the unity of charity or government is to posit the fundamental principle of all schism," Archbishop Lefebvre then illicitly consecrated four bishops on June 30, 1988.
The SSPX claims that the consecrations were justified because of a "state of necessity" within the Church. Their apologists argue that a papal approval is not always required. The problem with their position, however, is this: the right to select bishops belongs solely to the Roman Pontiff. This is a matter of divine law; it comes from Jesus Christ Himself. Just as Christ alone chose the Apostles, so the Vicar of Christ alone chooses and selects the successors of the Apostles. Archbishop Lefebvre acted wrongly because he acted against the express will of the Roman Pontiff, and at a time when he was suspended from exercising his priestly functions. There is never a necessity that would justify consecrating bishops against the will of the Holy Father, because he alone, by divine right, can choose who is received into the college of bishops. One simply does not become a member of the episcopal college without being accepted by its head. This is the teaching of the Church.
Pope Pius VI, in Charitas, stated:
"For the right of ordaining bishops belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions."
Pope Pius VI also taught in Super Soliditate:
"He who would wish to take from the Roman Pontiff the sovereign authority which he has to make these assignments of Bishops would find himself under the necessity of impugning the legitimacy of succession of the multitude of bishops who, all over the world, govern individual churches, and for the government of which these prelates have received their mission from the Sovereign Pontiff. Therefore, it is impossible, without causing very great disturbance in the Church, and without exposing episcopal authority itself to imminent danger, it is impossible to attack this great and marvelous assemblage of power which God has deigned to grant to the Chair of Peter."
The Council of Trent corroborates this:
"…those who, of their own rashness, assume them to themselves are not ministers of the church, but are to be looked upon as thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door." (Session 23, Chapter 4)
"If any one shall say, that the bishops, who are assumed by authority of the Roman Pontiff, are not legitimate and true bishops, but a human figment; let him be anathema." (Session 23, Canon 8)
Pope Pius IX, in Quartus Supra, further declared:
"The writings of the ancients testify that the election of Patriarchs had never been considered definite and valid without the agreement and confirmation of the Roman Pontiff… Everyone knows that the eternal and at times the temporal happiness of people depends on the proper election of bishops… But even if We had remained silent, this right and duty of the See of blessed Peter would have remained unimpaired. For the rights and privileges given to the See by Christ Himself, while they may be attacked, cannot be destroyed; no man has the power to renounce a divine right which he might at some time be compelled to exercise by the will of God Himself."
Pope Pius XII stated in Ad Apostolorum Principis:
"From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all rights and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established, which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred."
Theologian Monsignor Van Noort, in Christ's Church, adds:
"It would be ridiculous to think that someone could be constituted a member of that body in such a fashion as not to need to be acknowledged or adopted in any way by the head of that body, i.e., the Roman pontiff… it would be nonsensical to think someone could take charge of part of the sheepfold without the agreement of the one who rules the universal sheepfold with complete authority."
Theologian Father Sylvester Berry, in The Church of Christ, confirms:
"The Roman Pontiff, as successor of St. Peter, has sole authority to accept new members into the Apostolic body; he alone has authority to constitute bishops, since authority to teach and govern the faithful was conferred upon the Apostles as a body and can be obtained only by incorporation into that body."
Thus, the right to select, consecrate, and send bishops is a right of the Roman Primacy alone — a divine right given to Saint Peter by Christ Himself. No one can usurp it. Nevertheless, Archbishop Lefebvre did usurp this right from Pope John Paul II in 1988. No case of "necessity" or an appeal to the virtue of epikeia can justify his actions. This is why he and his society are necessarily schismatic. Sadly, this is not the only instance in which the Society breaks divine law.
II. The Question of Mission and Jurisdiction
To extend the saving work of His Redemption, Christ confers a mission upon His Bride, the Church. Jurisdiction, or mission, may be defined as "a public power, granted either directly by Christ Himself, or indirectly through the Church by lawful commission, of governing and leading the faithful towards the goal of eternal life." Just as Christ alone chose and selected the Apostles, so now the successors of the Apostles alone give to priestly ministers the mission to teach, govern, and sanctify the faithful. "For in virtue of the juridical mission by which our Divine Redeemer sent His Apostles into the world, as He had been sent by the Father, it is He who through the Church baptizes, teaches, rules, loosens, binds, and offers sacrifices." (Mystici Corporis Christi, no. 54) For a priest to exercise his priestly powers and act in the name of the Church, it is absolutely necessary that the Church commission him to do so.
The Church teaches that for the sacraments to be lawful, priestly ministers must be given an ordinary mission to exercise them. There is a mistaken notion that priests are lawful ministers of the sacraments simply because they are ordained. This is incorrect. Ordination gives a priest the potency to exercise his priestly powers, but this potential cannot be actualized without the reception of a mission from the Church.
The Baltimore Catechism, Volume 3, Question 1004, makes this truth clear:
Q. Can bishops, priests, and other ministers of the Church always exercise the power they have received in Holy Orders?
A. Bishops, priests, and other ministers of the Church cannot exercise the power they have received in Holy Orders unless authorized and sent to do so by their lawful superiors. The power can never be taken from them, but the right to use it may be withdrawn for causes laid down in the laws of the Church or for reasons that seem good to those in authority over them. Any use of sacred power without authority is sinful, and all who take part in such ceremonies are guilty of sin.
As the Council of Trent declared in Session 23:
"If anyone saith… that those who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by ecclesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments; let him be anathema."
SSPX apologists often appeal to the idea of "supplied jurisdiction" for the justification of their illicit sacramental functions. Since they claim a "state of emergency" exists within the Church, they feel justified in acting outside regular jurisdiction and assert that, by the nature of the crisis itself, they are granted a jurisdiction that would not otherwise exist. But there is no basis found for this in the teaching of canonists, theologians, tradition, or ecclesial law.
The Church only grants supplied jurisdiction in three specific cases under Canon 144: (1) danger of death, (2) common error, and (3) positive or probable doubt. There is no fourth category in which a "crisis in the Church" will supply jurisdiction to priests.
The first category involves providing for a soul in danger of death. Every ordained priest — even a heretical, schismatic, or laicized one — is granted faculties for this situation under Canon 976, and this would indeed include SSPX priests. The SSPX claims the latter two categories allow them to perform actions requiring jurisdiction on a recurring basis. This is completely incorrect.
The case of common error exists when a Catholic community mistakenly but reasonably believes that a minister has faculties from his local bishop. Since no one assumes that SSPX priests have ordinary jurisdiction — including themselves — the case of common error cannot apply.
The case of positive and probable doubt exists largely to give a confessor ease of conscience. If a priest has probable cause to believe he has been granted faculties by his local bishop, he may perform juridical and sacramental acts, but if he is mistaken, the Church will supply the proper faculties. SSPX clergy know that they do not have faculties for legal actions from the local ordinary. This case therefore most certainly does not apply to them.
Mission is understood in this context as being sent by a proper authority and is either ordinary or extraordinary. An ordinary mission comes from the visible hierarchy of the Church — for example, the local bishop — which the SSPX obviously lacks. An extraordinary mission is one given directly by Christ rather than by the Church's canonical structure; the example of Saint Joan of Arc is instructive. To prove her mission, she performed miraculous wonders. The Church has made clear that miracles must prove an extraordinary mission. As Pope Innocent III taught:
"When that inner mission is hidden, it does not suffice for anyone to assert so boldly that he is sent by God, since any heretic may profess this: but it is necessary that he proves that invisible mission by the working of miracles or by special testimony of the Scriptures."
Even an extraordinary mission would never be performed in opposition to the ordinary mission of the Church. As Saint Francis de Sales wrote:
"Where will you ever show me a legitimate, extraordinary vocation which has not been recognized by the ordinary authority?... The authority of the extraordinary mission never destroys the ordinary and is never given to overthrow it."
Cardinal Billot, one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century, confirmed:
"Legitimate dispensation of the sacraments can only come from the Catholic Church, so that anyone who does not have a mission from her, by that very fact, administers illicitly, and anyone who, by receiving the sacrament, communicates with the sin of the minister receives sacrilegiously."
Dom Prosper Guéranger likewise wrote:
"We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission comes from the apostolic see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ… If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers."
In summary: (1) by divine law, anyone who administers the sacraments must do so because of a mission from the Church; (2) anyone who claims to have an extraordinary mission must have miracles to prove it, approved by the Church; and (3) even an extraordinary mission must never be in opposition to the Church's authority. The SSPX certainly does not have an ordinary mission from the Church, as they themselves admit. They have no miracles and no ecclesial approval for their work, apart from the delegated faculties for confession granted by Pope Francis. As a result, their sacramental work is necessarily criminal and sacrilegious.
Monsignor Van Noort's ecclesiology manual offers further clarity:
"It is certainly not a backbreaking job to find the legitimate successor of Peter… To find out which men are acknowledged by the Roman Pontiff as the legitimate successors of the apostles is as easy as looking up a number in a telephone directory… Any man, then, who boasts of apostolic succession but is not united to the Roman pontiff, may indeed actually possess the power of orders; he may even, by purely physical succession, occupy a chair formerly occupied by an apostle — but he would not be a genuine successor of the apostles in their pastoral office. He would be a usurper."
Thus, both violations of divine law demonstrate schism: consecrations of bishops contrary to the will of the Holy Father, and the performance of sacramental ministry without ordinary jurisdiction.
III. Unjust Excommunication?
It is unfortunate that, apart from the lifting of the declared censures of excommunication, the canonical situation of the SSPX has not improved. John Paul II, in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, declared Marcel Lefebvre excommunicated and schismatic. He further stated that "formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law." The Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative Texts commented that "formal adherence" is manifested in "the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian 'ecclesial' acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church." Although the excommunication imposed on the bishops consecrated by Lefebvre has been lifted, they remain necessarily in schism. Paul VI similarly lifted the excommunication imposed on the Orthodox, but they remain in schism, as the SSPX would be the first to admit. In both cases, this act is merely the lifting of a legal obstacle to union with the Church. As Cardinal Müller, head of the former Ecclesia Dei Commission, stated: "The canonical excommunication of the bishops for their illegal ordinations was revoked, but a de facto sacramental excommunication remains for their schism; they put themselves out of communion with the Church."
This legislation, never overturned, means that all who formally adhere to the schism of Lefebvre incur latae sententiae excommunication — that is, excommunication incurred ipso facto without further declaration needed by the Church. And those who are excommunicated must cease to be called Catholic.
It is common to hear that Archbishop Lefebvre and his adherents acted lawfully in disregarding the Holy See's excommunications, since they were "unjust." But Pope Pius IX, addressing the Armenian schismatics of his day, refutes this claim in Quartus Supra:
"They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them was unjust and consequently void of strength and influence. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church. For 'the whole Church throughout the world knows that the See of the blessed Apostle Peter has the right of loosing again what any pontiffs have bound, since this See possesses the right of judging the whole Church, and no one may judge its judgment.' The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an excommunication pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on the pretext of injustice… Our predecessor St. Gregory the Great warned, 'for a bishop's subordinates to fear even an unjust condemnation and not to blame the judgment of the bishop rashly.'"
Pius IX cites Unigenitus Dei Filius, the document in which Pope Clement XI condemned the Jansenist heretics. In it, the following two propositions were condemned:
91. The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when, by the wickedness of men, we seem to be expelled from it, as long as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity.
92. To suffer in peace an excommunication and an unjust anathema rather than betray truth, is to imitate St. Paul, far be it from rebelling against authority or destroying unity.
IV. Fulfillment of the Sunday Obligation
It is essential to note that Masses said by the SSPX do not fulfill the Sunday Obligation under the Church's law as outlined in Canon 1248. There is a commandment of divine law — the Third Commandment — that we worship God on Sundays. This is usually fulfilled through the ecclesiastical precept to attend a Catholic Mass. To deviate from this ecclesiastical precept is a mortal sin if one does not have a grave reason for doing so. From the Code of Canon Law:
Canon 1248: A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participation in the Mass.
At first glance, it might seem that this canon would indicate that one could attend SSPX Masses to fulfill the Sunday Obligation, since their Mass is the Traditional Mass. But this is a complete misunderstanding. A "Catholic rite" is not the same thing as a liturgical rite. A liturgical rite is a particular missal approved for use by the Holy See. A "Catholic rite" is the term used to denote a Church sui juris — a Church in communion with the Holy See and erected by the supreme authority of the Church, the Roman Pontiff:
Canon 27: A community of the Christian faithful, which is joined together by a hierarchy according to the norm of law and which is expressly or tacitly recognized as sui juris by the supreme authority of the Church.
Canon 373: It is within the competence of the supreme authority alone to establish particular Churches; once they are lawfully established, the law itself gives them juridical personality.
There are twenty-four sui juris Churches within the Catholic Church: one is the Latin Rite, and the other twenty-three are Eastern Churches. The Commentary on the Code of Canon Law confirms:
"The Mass must be celebrated in a Catholic rite, i.e., in the liturgical rite of any Catholic Church sui juris, but not in a church that is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, although using a Catholic liturgical rite."
The SSPX is not a Church sui juris. It has not been erected by a competent authority as required by Canon 373, nor has it been recognized as a particular Church by the Holy See. Thus, their Masses cannot fulfill the Sunday Obligation. The Holy See has ruled on this several times. The Ecclesia Dei Commission ruled negatively in 1984, 1988, 1995, 1996, 2002, 2003, 2012, and 2015. On April 15, 2002, Monsignor Perl of the Ecclesia Dei Commission expressly stated:
Question: "Could one attend a Mass celebrated by an SSPX priest or a priest from a community close to this Society and receive Holy Communion on a Sunday?"
Reply: "No. Holy Mass must be offered in communion with the Church, the Pope, and the local Bishop."
Thus, by participating in SSPX Masses on Sundays and holy days, one does not fulfill the obligation and commits an objective sin in doing so.
V. Justified Separation from the True Church?
In the face of all this, one might wonder how Archbishop Lefebvre could break from the Church's authority and claim justification for his actions. The simple answer: he lost faith in the Catholic Church. SSPX apologists try to claim that there is no schism between the Roman Catholic Church and their sect. This is nonsensical, not least because Archbishop Lefebvre himself claimed there was a schism. He spoke this way on numerous occasions:
"It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church… we are talking about a counterfeit version of the Church, and not the Catholic Church… It is no longer the Catholic Church. We are suspended a divinis by the conciliar church, of which we do not want to be a part. This conciliar church is schismatic, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time… Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy… It is a schismatic council. The Church, which affirms such errors, is both schismatic and heretical."
"This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic. To whatever extent the Pope, bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church… It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church."
This constitutes an explicit rejection of the Church Herself, not to mention the Church's teaching on Her indefectibility and visibility. If this were true, what would have become of Christ's promise about the perpetuity of the Church? Archbishop Lefebvre gave his own erroneous answer:
"We truly represent the Catholic Church as it was before, because we continue what it has always done. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic."
This is the claim of all schismatics — beginning with the Donatists, Novatians, Lucifer of Cagliari, Old Catholics, Protestants, and Sedevacantists. They all claim that the visible Church has been corrupted and that the only place where the light of faith still burns is within their sect. It is the devil's trap, and Archbishop Lefebvre fell into it. The Fourth Council of Constantinople, ratified by two reigning popes, teaches:
"This holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful inquiry and judgment in synod… If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled." (Canon 10)
Summary
(1) Archbishop Lefebvre broke with the authority of the Supreme Pontiff in multiple ways before the 1988 episcopal consecrations.
(2) He broke divine and ecclesial law in consecrating bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff. The Church teaches that this is necessarily a schismatic act.
(3) The SSPX breaks divine and ecclesial law in operating without a mission from the Church. The Council of Trent and all subsequent theologians state that sacraments offered without ecclesial mission are criminal and sacrilegious.
(4) Any appeal to extraordinary circumstances cannot justify these violations of divine law.
(5) "Supplied jurisdiction" cannot be claimed as justification because this requires the minister first to have a canonical mission from the Church, which the SSPX, by their own admission, does not have.
(6) All this proves them to be schismatics, and therefore their sacraments to be illicit, apart from whatever has been delegated to them by the Holy See.
(7) The Church has officially declared them to be schismatic and that any who "formally adhere" to their group are excommunicated latae sententiae.
(8) Their Masses do not follow the requirements of Canon 1248 for fulfillment of the ecclesiastical precept of the Sunday Obligation.
(9) Archbishop Lefebvre taught the heresy that the Catholic Church had defected and that its marks had "transferred" to the Society of Saint Pius X.
VI. True Devotion to the Church
Archbishop Lefebvre, some claim, was "a saint for the twentieth century." There is no possible justification for this claim. Archbishop Lefebvre took it upon himself to "save the Church," disregarding the lawful suspension of his priestly faculties. A true saint of the twentieth century, Padre Pio, obeyed the decrees of his local ordinary and refrained from hearing confessions or communicating with his spiritual children for ten years, while unjustly punished. Archbishop Lefebvre called Holy Mother Church a "counterfeit Church." Saint Pio said, "Blessed be the Church, even when it strikes us, for it is the hand of a Mother." Saint Louis de Montfort was often stripped of his faculties when he traveled to a new diocese, yet he obeyed the bishop with perfect submission.
Saint Athanasius also lived through an extraordinary crisis in the Church. Some SSPX apologists claim — erroneously — that his actions are akin to those of Archbishop Lefebvre. They could not be more wrong. Saint Athanasius neither had nor claimed an extraordinary mission, since he had a canonical mission. He submitted to his excommunication, despite its injustice, unlike Archbishop Lefebvre. Saint Athanasius did not usurp the authority of other bishops and remained in communion with the Pope.
Saint Francis de Sales, in The Catholic Controversies, condemns the early errors of the Calvinists and, in so doing, condemns also the views of the SSPX:
"The most solid of your party has taken ground elsewhere than in the ordinary mission and has said that they were sent extraordinarily by God because the ordinary mission had been ruined and abolished, with the true Church itself, under the tyranny of antichrist."
This is precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre claimed. De Sales concludes:
"For to leave the Church and disregard her commands is evermore to become a heathen and a publican, be it at the persuasion of an angel or a seraph… this is a fault which cannot be covered save by a great repentance and penitence, to which I invite you on the part of the living God."
It is a clever trap of the devil: he creates a crisis within the Church's liturgy and then establishes a schismatic body without apparent liturgical abuse. It is this deceptive facade that makes the SSPX such a danger to souls. As Pope Leo XIII wrote in Satis Cognitum, quoting Saint Augustine:
"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition."
Father Frederick Faber, in Devotion to the Church, wrote of the end times:
"Our Blessed Redeemer said of the false prophets of the last days that they should 'deceive, if possible, even the elect.' Now we must remember that if all the manifestly good men were on one side, and all the manifestly bad on the other, there would be no danger of anyone, least of all the elect, being deceived by lying wonders. It is good men, good once, we must hope good still, who are to do the work of Antichrist, and so sadly to crucify afresh the Lord whom they do more than profess to love."
Holy Mother Church is suffering. As Pius XII wrote:
"It is the will of Jesus Christ that the whole body of the Church, no less than the individual members, should resemble Him… What wonder then, if, while on this earth, she, like Christ, suffers persecutions, insults, and sorrows." (Mystici Corporis Christi, no. 47)
As the modernists try to put the Church to death, those who should be the friends of the Mystical Body of Christ are sadly abandoning Her, just as Christ was abandoned by most of His Apostles on Calvary. We only do harm to the Mystical Body by fleeing during this current Passion. To remain within the Church and endure the trial of faith, however, united to the sufferings of Christ our Head, will greatly please Our Lord. For we must remember: it is the Church who saves us, and not we who save the Church.
Footnotes
- 1974 Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre, at the SSPX website.
- Vatican I, Fourth Session, Chapter Three.
- John Salza, "Is the SSPX in Schism?" YouTube.
- Salza, "Is the SSPX in Schism?"
- Joseph Bisig, "A Study of Consecrations Against the Will of the Pope," available at fsspsolgs.org, pp. 14–15.
- Msgr. Van Noort, Christ's Church, pp. 323–324.
- Fr. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ, pp. 408–409.
- The claim that Pope John Paul II — as Cardinal Wojtyła — performed actions comparable to those of Archbishop Lefebvre is incorrect. Cardinal Wojtyła was ordaining priests rather than consecrating bishops, and priestly ordination does not require an apostolic mandate as does the consecration of bishops. Furthermore, while bishops in Poland were restrained in ordinations within their dioceses, no law forbade them from granting other bishops permission to ordain their subjects outside their dioceses. Cardinal Wojtyła's priestly ordinations were both valid and absolutely licit according to Church law. As for the clandestine ordinations of Cardinal Slipyj, the best scholarship suggests that Paul VI was aware of these consecrations and tacitly allowed them to proceed. Regardless, the present argument is not that an explicit papal mandate is always required, but that episcopal consecrations can never be performed against the expressed will of the Pope, since determining membership in the college of bishops is a papal prerogative by divine law.
- Francis Sigismund Miaskiewicz, J.C.L., Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209, p. 8.
- Mystici Corporis Christi, no. 54.
- A legally recognized Catholic entity, such as a diocesan parish or oratory.
- This is prescinding from the delegated faculties given to them under Pope Francis, discussed later.
- Pope Innocent III, Cum ex injuncto (1199).
- St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversies.
- De Sacramentis, Thesis XVI.
- Dom Prosper Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, vol. 4: Septuagesima. New York: Benziger, 1909, pp. 286–287.
- "Ordinary successors" are only those whose episcopacy has been ratified by the Holy See. Orthodox bishops, like those of the SSPX, are not ordinary successors.
- Msgr. Van Noort, Christ's Church, pp. 153–154.
- John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, 5c.
- "The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre," available at Catholic Culture.
- Cardinal Müller, as quoted in "SSPX Indefensible," at the True or False Pope website.
- See Pius IX, Quartus Supra, 9.
- Pius IX, Encyclical Quartus Supra, 10 (1873).
- New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green.
- As quoted in John Salza, "Does Assisting at an SSPX Mass Fulfill One's Sunday Obligation?" Note: a private response to an individual in 2002 is sometimes cited by SSPX proponents. Monsignor Perl replied that a person without access to any Catholic Mass could, in the strict sense, seek to fulfill the divine law of giving honor to God on Sunday through an SSPX Mass, but could not fulfill the ecclesiastical precept in doing so since the Masses were illicit. This also implied one could not receive Communion. Once people began abusing this private reply, Monsignor Perl issued a clarification stating that the letter "was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us… the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to the law of the Church."
- Marcel Lefebvre, Spiritual Conference, Écône, June 21, 1978, published in Sel de Terre, no. 50, p. 244.
- From La Visibilité de l'Église, Marcel Lefebvre.
- Ibid.
- Fourth Council of Constantinople, Canon 10.
- SSPX apologists often try to justify their position by citing the sacraments that Pope Francis delegated to them. Certain parts of the Orthodox have also been explicitly delegated faculties for confession by the Holy See, yet they remain schismatic. There is no metaphysical incompatibility between being a schismatic priest and having faculties for confession. It does not prove that the SSPX, or the Orthodox, are not schismatic, since neither belongs to the Church's visible, juridical structure.
- For purposes of brevity, this monograph does not address certain other grave errors of Archbishop Lefebvre's teaching, including his gravely erroneous understanding of sacramental intention contrary to the entire tradition of the Church, his claims about jurisdiction being granted by the people, and his rejection of the Church's 1989 Profession of Faith.
- Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversies, p. 9.
- "The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome are being occupied by anti-Christs." (Archbishop Lefebvre, SSPXasia.com)
- St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversies, p. 18.
- Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, no. 9.
- Fr. Frederick Faber, Devotion to the Church, pp. 44–48.
- Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, no. 47.
