The Recusant #61 - Lent 2024

[Stone]

Traditionalist “Schism”/”Excommunication”..?

Another example from the old SSPX.
The following extract is taken from the book: ‘Most Asked Questions About the Society of St Pius X’ - also available here: archives.sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm

Question 11: Wasn’t Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated for consecrating bishops unlawfully?

June 29, 1987: Archbishop Lefebvre, experiencing failing health and seeing no other way of assuring the continued ordination of truly Catholic priests, decided to consecrate Bishops and announced that, if necessary, he will do so even without the Pope’s permission.

June 17, 1988: Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, officially warned the Archbishop that, in virtue of canon 1382 (1983 Code of Canon Law), he and the bishops consecrated by him would be excommunicated for proceeding without pontifical mandate and thereby infringing the laws of sacred discipline.

June 30, 1988: Archbishop Lefebvre, together with Bishop de Castro Mayer, consecrated four bishops.

July 1, 1988: Cardinal Gantin declared the threatened excommunication (according to canon 1382) to have been incurred. He also called the consecrations a schismatic act and declared the corresponding excommunication (canon1364 §1), as well as threatening anyone supporting the consecrations with excommunication because of “schism.”

July 2, 1988: In ‘Ecclesia Dei Afflicta,’ the Pope repeated Cardinal Gantin’s accusation of schismatic mentality and threatened generalised excommunications.

Now, the excommunication warned of on June 17, for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382), was not incurred because:

1) A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity:

  • if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323,70),
  • and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties
    (canon 1324, §3; §1,80).

2) No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 70). Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he was bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the consecrations. Hence, even if he had been wrong, there would be no subjective sin.

3) Most importantly, positive law is at the service of the natural and eternal law and ecclesiastical law is at that of the divine law (Principle 8). No “authority,” can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments. No “law,” can force him to co-operate in the destruction of the Church. With Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he could with his God-given episcopal powers to guarantee its preservation. It was
his duty as a bishop.

4) The Church’s approving the Society of Saint Pius X allows it what it needs for its own preservation. This includes the service of bishops who will guarantee to maintain Catholic tradition.


Question 12: Isn’t the Society of Saint Pius X schismatic?

Was Archbishop Lefebvre (along with his co-consecrator and the four bishops whom he consecrated) excommunicated also for having done a “schismatic act” as well as for consecrating without pontifical mandate, Question 11)?

No. A first argument is that already given (Question 11,1). What, moreover, constitutes a schismatic act? Not the mere deed of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. The 1983 Code of Canon Law itself lists this offence under Title 3 (abuse of ecclesiastical powers) and not under Title 1 (offences against religion and the unity of the Church) of its penal section (Book 6).

Nor would it be a “schismatic act” to consecrate against the express wish of the Holy Father. That could amount to disobedience at most.* But disobedience does not amount to schism; Schism requires that one not recognise the authority of the pope to command; disobedience consists in not obeying a command, whilst still acknowledging the authority of the one commanding. “The child who says ‘I won’t!’ to his mother does not deny that she is his mother.” (Fr Glover)

Now, Archbishop Lefebvre always recognised the Pope’s authority (proved by his consultations with Rome for a solution to the current problems) and so does the Society of Saint Pius X. (See, for example, its support for Pope John Paul’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis against women priests.)

Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate would be a schismatic act if one pretended to confer not just the fullness of the priesthood but also jurisdiction, a governing power over a particular flock. Only the Pope, who has universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, can appoint a pastor to a flock and empower him to govern it. But Archbishop Lefebvre never presumed to confer anything but the full priestly powers of holy orders, and in no way did he grant any jurisdiction (which he himself did not have personally to give).

As for the Faithful, threatened by Pope John Paul II himself with excommunication if they adhere formally to the schism (‘Ecclesia Dei Afflicta’, July 2, 1988), do they indeed incur any excommunication for going to Society of Saint Pius X priests for the sacraments?

Not at all. The Society of Saint Pius X priests are neither excommunicated nor schismatics.

This being so, how could any of the faithful who approach them incur these penalties? Besides:

“Excommunication is a penalty for those who commit certain crimes with full moral guilt, not a contagious disease!” (Fr. Glover)

On May 1, 1991, Bishop Ferrario of Hawaii “excommunicated” certain Catholics of his diocese for attending Masses celebrated by priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, and receiving a bishop of the Society of Saint Pius X to confer the sacrament of Confirmation. Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, overturned this decision:

“From the examination of the case...it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offence of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1,1991, lacks foundation and hence validity.” (June 28,1993).

* (But there is no disobedience, cf. ‘An Open Letter to Confused Catholics,’ pp. 129-136. cf. “The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope's permission) is not itself a schismatic act” - Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, October 7, 1988)