By Subverting Traditional Ceremonies, a Pope Falls into Schism

[Stone]

Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly said that the Conciliar Church was schismatic, specifically because of it's new rites, laws, worship, institutions, etc:

• “What could be clearer? We must henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)
  

• "It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church." (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976)
  

• “It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)
  

• “The magisterium of today is not sufficient by itself to be called Catholic unless it is the transmission of the Deposit of Faith, that is, of Tradition. A new magisterium without roots in the past, and all the more if it is opposed to the magisterium of all times, can only be schismatic and heretical. The permanent will to annihilate Tradition is a suicidal will, which justifies, by its very existence, true and faithful Catholics when they make the decision necessary for the survival of the Church and the salvation of souls. Our Lady of Fatima, I am sure, blesses this final appeal in this 70th anniversary of her apparitions and messages. May you not be for a second time deaf to her appeal.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, July 8, 1987, Excerpt from the Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger)
  

• “Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible' - these things we do not accept.” (Sermon, July 29, 1976)
  

The following three articles are from a short series offered by Tradition in Action that highlight that Popes embracing deviations from Traditional worship may be considered schismatic according to the opinions of several highly-regarded theologians of the past. It is also important to note that, as Archbishop Lefebvre insisted (unless the Church decides otherwise in the future), this conclusion of schism does not mean these popes have automatically lost their office of the Papacy.

NB: While The Catacombs does not embrace every position of Tradition in Action, wherever they repeat the teachings of the traditional Faith, we are happy to reproduce them here.

By Departing from Traditional Worship, a Pope Falls into Schism

TIA | August 2021

With Traditionis custodes, Pope Francis intended to ban the Perpetual Mass of the Church, codified by St. Pius V in the 16th century according to the canons of the Council of Trent. This Mass, however, was created neither by that Pontiff nor that Council. They merely codified the same Mass that had been said since the time of the Apostles. This Mass, consequently, has been identified with the Catholic Church for her entire History. It is her Perpetual Mass.

In 1969, Pope Paul VI created a New Mass, which he de facto enforced on the Church, while he theoretically admitted a right for the Perpetual Mass to be said. Now, Pope Francis abolished de jure the Perpetual Mass of the Church.

This new decision raises the question of whether a Pope has the right to abolish the multi-secular Mass of the Catholic Church. Great theologians of the past discussed this possibility and concluded that a Pope who separates himself from the traditional ecclesiastical cult of the Church becomes schismatic, although without ipso facto losing the office of the Papacy.

Today, TIA begins to post the opinions of some of these theologians to help our readers better understand the complex situation in which we live.

Card. John of Torquemada (1388-1468)

To demonstrate that a Pope can separate himself illegitimately from the unity of the Church and from obedience to the Head of the Church and, therefore, fall into schism, Cardinal Torquemada uses three arguments:

“1. (…) by disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ, who is the principal Head of the Church and in relation to Whom the unity of the Church is primarily constituted. He can do this by disobeying the law of Christ (1) or by ordering something which is contrary to natural or divine law. In this way he would separate himself from the body of the Church, while it is subject to Christ by obedience. Thus, the Pope would be able without doubt to fall into schism.

2. The Pope can separate himself without any reasonable cause, just by pure self will, from the body of the Church and the college of priests. He will do this if he does not observe that which the Church Universal observes on the basis of the Tradition of the Apostles according to the chapter Ecclesiasticarum, dil. 11, or if he did not observe that which was universally ordained by the universal Councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See, above all in relation to Divine Worship: For example, not wishing to observe personally something from the universal customs of the Church, or the universal rite of the ecclesiastical cult.

This would take place should he not wish to celebrate with the sacred vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or should he not wish to make “The Sign of the Cross” like the other priests make it, or other similar things which have been decreed in a general way for perpetual useage, according to the canons Quae ad perpetuam, Violatores, Sunt quidam and Contra statuta (25, q. 1).

Departing in such a way, and with pertinacity, from the universal observance of the Church, the Pope would be able to fall into schism. The consequence is good; and the antecedent is not doubtful, for the Pope, just as he could fall into heresy, could also disobey and pertinaciously cease to observe that which was established as the common order in the Church. For this reason, Innocent says (c. De Consue.), that one ought to obey the Pope in everything as long as he does not turn against the universal order of the Church, for in such a case the Pope must not be followed, unless there be reasonable cause for this.

3. Let us suppose that more than one person considers himself Pope, and that one of them is the true Pope, but is considered by some to be seemingly dubious. And let us suppose that this true Pope comported himself with such negligence and obstinacy in the pursuit of unity in the Church that he did not wish to do everything he could for the reestablishment of unity. In this hypothesis, the Pope would be considered as a fomenter of schism, according to what many have argued, even in our days, regarding Benedict XIII and Gregory XII” (2)



1. As is obvious, the sin of schism is not committed in any act of disobedience whatsoever, but only in that in which one denies the actual principle of authority in the Church, thus breaking the ecclesiastical unity (see St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II-II. 39, I; M. J. Congar, Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, article “Schisme”, col. 1304). This conception is presupposed by Torquemada in the text cited. We make this observation because it might possibly appear to the reader that the passage transcribed above grossly confounds “disobedience to the law of Christ” with schism – which would have the absurd consequence that for any sin whatsoever the Pope would become schismatic. Torquemada is, moreover, one of the greatest defenders of the principle that a scandalous and immoral, but not heretical or schismatic, Pope conserves the Pontificate (see Summa de Ecclesia., lib. II, cap. 101).
2. Cardinal Torquemada, Summa de Ecclesia, pars I, lib. IV, cap. 11, p. 369 ff.

(Arnaldo V.X. Silveira, The Theological Hypothesis of a Heretic Pope, available here, p. 181)

[Stone]

See here for the doubtfulness of the Conciliar Sacraments:


New Rite Sacraments

Archbishop Lefebvre - On the Doubtfulness of the Conciliar Sacraments

The Dogmas of the New [Conciliar] Religion

[Stone]

By Subverting Traditional Ceremonies, a Pope Falls into Schism

TIA | August 21, 2021

Following the same rationale regarding last week's excerpt (see above article), TIA continues to post the opinions of some of famous theologians on the possibility of a Pope falling into schism.

Today, we bring to our readers a text on this topic by Fr. Francisco Suarez, SJ, one of the greatest Catholic theologians after St. Thomas Aquinas.

Fr. Francisco Suarez (1548-1617)

“Schism may come about not only by reason of heresy, but also without it, as it takes place when someone, conserving the faith, does not wish to maintain the unity of the Church in his actions and his manner of practicing our religion. And this may come about in two ways.

“In the first way, separating oneself from the head of the Church, as one reads in the chapter Non Vos, 23, question 5, in which the Gloss says that schism consists in not having the Roman Pontiff as one’s head – and not in denying that the Roman Pontiff is the head of the Church, for this would be schism united to heresy. Rather, it is either rashly denying some Pontiff in particular, or behaving in relation to him as if he were not the head: for example if someone were to try to convoke a General Council without his authorization, or elect an anti-pope. This is the most common mode of schism.

“There could be a second mode of schism if someone separated himself from the body of the Church not wishing to communicate with it in the participation of the Sacraments. Saint Epiphanius narrates an example of this (Haeres., 68), in respect to the sect of Melecius, who, dissented with his Patriarch, Peter of Alexandrine, separated himself from him in al the sacrifices, and was accused of schism, although between the two there was not any divergence in matters of faith, as Epiphanius attests.

And in this second way, the Pope could be schismatic should he not want to have the due union and coordination with the whole body of the Church, as would be the case if he tried to excommunicate the whole Church, or if he wanted to subvert all the ecclesiastical ceremonies founded on apostolic tradition, as was observed by Cajetan (ad II-II, q. 39) and, with greater amplitude, by Torquemada (1. 4, c.11)” (1).



1. Suarez, De Caritate, disp. XII, sect. I n 2, pp. 733-734. As we see, the hypothesis of a fall of the Pope into schism, as conceived by the theologians who really studied the question, is logically possible, granted that it does not involve a contadiction. We do not comprehend, then, how a canonist of incontestable authority, like Father Cappello could write; “Some cite also (among the cases of cessation of pontifical power) schism (of the Pope) and they match it with heresy (cfr. Wernz, Ius Can., tom. II, n. 616). But how can the Pope become schismatic? For where he is, is not the (cfr. can. 1325, 2) true Church there also? This opinion, as others, must be considered antiquated” (Summa Iuris Can., I, p. 276, note 21). A position analogous to that of Father Cappello is adopted also by Phillips, Du Droit Eccl., vol. I, p. 178. In our view, the attitude taken by these authors induces one to think that they did not study the question ex professo

(Arnaldo V.X. Silveira, The Theological Hypothesis of a Heretic Pope, available here, p. 179)

[Stone]

By Rebelling against the Obligations of His Charge, a Pope Falls into Schism

TIA brings today to our readers a text by Card. Charles Journet commenting on an opinion of Fr. Thomas Cajetan, OP, (1469-1534). The later affirmed that a Pope who rebels against the obligations of his charge and refuses to provide the Church with the spiritual orientation she has the right to receive from him, incurs schism.

We wonder whether this is the case of Francis who refuses to use the symbols and titles of the Papacy. He is also replacing the spiritual care the faithful should receive from him with an ecological care.


Card. Charles Journet (1891-1975)

“1. The theologians of old (Torquemada, Cajetan, Banez), who thought, in agreement with the Decree of Gratian (part I, dist. XV, c. IV), that the Pope, infallible as Doctor of the Church, could however personally sin against faith and fall into heresy (see L’Eglise du Verbe Incarne, t. I, p. 596), admitted with greater reason that the Pope could sin against charity, even in the measure that the latter constitutes the unity of the ecclesiastical communion, and thus he would fall into schism (1).

“The unity of the Church, according to what they say, subsists even when the Pope dies. Therefore, it could subsist also when a Pope falls into schism (Cajetan, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, n VI).

“They ask themselves, however, in what manner can the Pope become schismatic. For he can separate himself neither from the head of the Church, that is, from himself, nor from the Church, for where the Pope is, there is the Church.

“To this Cajetan responds that the Pope could break the communion by ceasing to comport himself as the spiritual head of the Church, deciding, for example, to act as a mere temporal prince. To save his liberty, he would flee thus from the duties of his charge; and if he did this with pertinacity there would be schism (2). As for the axiom “where the Pope is, there is the Church,” it holds when the Pope comports himself as Pope and head of the Church; otherwise, the Church is not in him, nor is he in the Church (Cajetan, ibid.).

“2. It is said at times that the Pope, being unable to disobey, has only one gateway to schism (3). From the analyses which we are conducting, it results, to the contrary, that he also can sin against the ecclesiastical community in two ways:

a. Breaking the unity of connection, which would suppose on his part the will to avoid the action of grace as far as it is sacramental, and which brings into being the unity of the Church;

b. Breaking the unity of direction, which would result, according to the penetrating analysis of Cajetan, if he rebelled as a private person against the obligations of his charge and refused to the Church (by trying to excommunicate the whole Church or simply by resolving, in a deliberate way, to live as a mere temporal Prince) the spiritual orientation which she has the right to expect from him in the name of One who is greater than he: that is, in the name of Christ and of God” (4).


1. In a footnote, Card. Journet makes the following observation: “This possibility is not universally admitted. Notwithstanding, states M. J. Congar, “considered in a purely theoretical way it does not appear doubtful” (Dictionnaire de Theologie Catolique, article 'Schisme', col. 1306). This is what is taught by Suarez (De Caritate, disp. 12, sect. I, n. 2, t. XII, p. 733)”.
2. In a footnote, Card. Journet cites the Latin text of Cajetan, which we translate: “The person of the Pope may refuse to submit to [obligations of] the Papal charge (…). And if he did this with pertinacity of spirit, he would become schismatic by separating himself from the unity of the head. In effect, his person is bound, before God, by the laws of his charge (ibid.).”
3. In a footnote, Card. Journet cites a topic of the text of Suarez which we cite above, and makes the following commentary: “According to Suarez, the Pope, therefore, would not be able to sin against the unity of direction. But he presents as an example what we consider precisely to be a sin against the unity of direction”.
4. Card. Charles Journet, L’Eglise du Verbe Incarne, Bruges: Desclee, 1962, vol. II, pp. 839-840.

(Arnaldo V.X. Silveira, The Theological Hypothesis of a Heretic Pope, available here, p. 180)

[Stone]

Father Suarez states:

"...the Pope could be schismatic should he not want to have the due union and coordination with the whole body of the Church, as would be the case if he tried to excommunicate the whole Church, or if he wanted to subvert all the ecclesiastical ceremonies founded on apostolic tradition."

If this subversion of all ecclesiastical ceremonies - as did indeed happen in the wake of Vatican II is enough to put the Conciliar Popes and the Conciliar Church into schism, then how can we trust the now-Conciliar SSPX when Bp. Fellay, in his role as the head of the SSPX declared the (subverted) New Mass 'legitimately promulgated,' that we can accept the New Code of Canon Law which codifies all the errors of Vatican II, etc.?

How can we trust Bp. Williamson who states that there is grace in the (subverted) New Mass? That the 'New Religion can build your faith?  That by 'distancing yourself from the Conciliar church, you are putting yourself in danger and risk becoming a Pharisee who is disconnected from reality.'

It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre is right and Bps. Fellay and Williamson are wrong! We cannot accept the New Mass, the New Sacraments, the new Conciliar religion, the Conciliar Eucharistic 'miracles,' etc.We must remain loyal and faithful to the true Catholic Religion, not the one made by man at Vatican II. Anyone who says we can accept these man-made changes is a false shepherd.

"This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church which they call the Conciliar Church." (Archbishop Lefbvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p. 13)

Let us redouble our prayers for the prelates and the priests, especially those who like the Conciliar popes, "diffuses the principles of a false religion, which has for its result a general apostasy.”(Preface to Giulio Tam’s Osservatore Romano 1990, contributed by the Archbishop just three weeks before his death)

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne, in her in-depth analysis of the changes that led up to the New Mass, had this to say about the abolition of Minor Orders by Pope Paul VI in 1972:

The Roots of Schism

Let us keep in mind that when Paul VI abolished the Minor Orders and the Sub-Diaconate, he not only contradicted the truth of their status as clerical orders, but also rejected the anathemas issued by the Council of Trent on this subject. He inflicted on the Church a sudden and violent change that would prove to be severely damaging to the Faith.

A death blow to the cursus honorum

Ministeria quaedam was a blow aimed directly at the traditional understanding of the hierarchical priesthood for which a gradation of clerical orders by way of preparation and probation – the so-called cursus honorum – had been understood to have existed from the very beginnings of the Church (ad ipso Ecclesiae initio, as the Council of Trent stated).

When this long-standing tradition was abruptly ended in 1972, clergy and laity alike were left with the impression that what they believed about the greatness of the ordained priesthood was a monumental delusion that came crashing down at the stroke of a papal pen.

It is true that the sequence of Minor Orders had a varied and complex history before becoming standardized in the 11th century in the Western Church. (5) But what remained unchanged over all the centuries up to 1972 was the vital principle of stability and continuity insofar as they were recognized as clerical in nature. This was the unbroken Latin tradition as it was actually understood in the first two millennia of the Church. And as no Pope has the authority to subvert Tradition, we can draw the only reasonable conclusion that Ministeria quaedam – like many other of Pope Paul’s innovations, including his Novus Ordo Missae – was a schismatic act. (here, here and here)

This conclusion is strengthened by the open derision and contempt with which the Consilium members treated the Minor Orders and the slurs they cast on their truthfulness. It is scarcely credible that they could speak in those terms against an ancient and venerable institution that had supported their own priesthood.

How can Catholic priests so despise their own sacred tradition of Minor Orders as to recommend their abolition? How can a Pope accede to their demands, suddenly declare them to be outdated categories, and sever their intrinsic connection with the clerical state?

It is unconscionable that the Church was providing a platform for the dissemination of lies about the liturgy and that it was providing support for those who were hostile towards Tradition and anyone who followed it faithfully.

Pope Paul VI famously lamented that the Church was undergoing a process of self-demolition. But in a Church where the revolutionaries’ desires are more important than Tradition, and where the ordained ministers have been induced to hate what they had been taught to love before Vatican II, what other outcome could be expected?