CORRESPONDENCE TO AND FROM ROME
ON THE STATUS OF
THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X (SSPX)

The response from Msgr Camille Perl has been posted in EWTN's CURIA Library. (http://www.ewtn.com) A composite of the letter to Cardinal Ratzinger and Msgr Perl's response is online at http://www.freeyellow.com/members3/matt1618/schism.html

F. John Loughnan June 7, 1999.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger August 20, 1998
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vatican City EUROPE

Your Eminence,
On July 2, 1988, in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, His Holiness Pope John Paul II forthrightly stated that "Archbishop 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", and that "formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

On March 22, 1996, Bishop Bruskewitz (Diocese of Lincoln, USA) included the SSPX in twelve organisations, including such groups as Call to Action, Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood and the Freemasons, "whose beliefs and practices are perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic Faith."

Since 1988 the Society of St Pius X and its supporters have maintained that

  1. they are NOT in schism, and

  2. that the bishops named by the Pope are NOT excommunicated, nor are the priests
    nor faithful who adhere to the SSPX, and

  3. that the SSPX is in communion with Rome.
Fr Brian Harrison O.S., described arguments by "members and supporters of the Society of St Pius X" (relative to the SSPX denial that Archbishop Lefebvre did, in fact, attach his signature to Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes) as "resort(ing) to (using) the most convoluted hermeneutical acrobatics and bizarre conspiracy theories."

"Letters to Friends and Benefactors" in Australia by the Australian SSPX Superior and his Seminary Rector deny the validity of canonical sanctions and claim that not only are the Catholic faithful free to attend Society Masses - they are specifically NOT entitled to attend Novus Ordo Masses - such "masses" being NOT Catholic and the saying of which by a SSPX priest (and, presumably, diocesan priests) would involve mortal sin!

After twenty odd years of adherence to the traditional Mass, for the last several years I have been attempting to moderate the statements and actions of some of the Australian SSPX priests - to no avail. On January 5, 1998 I sent a 136 page document entitled My Reasons For Withdrawing From The Society Of St Pius X to Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, and a copy of it to Archbishop George Pell, Archdiocese of Melbourne. I enclose the first six pages of that document, together with copies of documents by Australian priests of the SSPX for evaluation.

Some questions arise:

In humble submission to the Vicar of Christ,

Yours faithfully,
F J (John) Loughnan
10 Glendale Drive
CHIRNSIDE PARK VIC. 3116
AUSTRALIA

*****************************************
Attachments:

  1. Fr. Jean Violette "Letter to Faithful" of August 27, 1994. [FrVL2F Aug. 27, 1994]
  2. Fr. Jean Violette "Letter to Faithful" of October 7, 1994. [FrVL2F Oct. 7, 1994]
  3. Fr. Jean Violette "Letter to Faithful" of November 1, 1994. [FrVL2F Nov. 1, 1994]
  4. "Open Letter to the Society of St Pius X" by Dr Tim. Pickford. [TPOL2SSPX Dec. 17, 1994]
  5. Fr. James Peek Holy Cross Seminary "Letter to Friends and Benefactors" of 7th December '94. [FrPHCSL2FB Dec. 7, 1994]
  6. Fr. Jean Violette "Letter to Faithful" of January 1, 1995. [FrVL2F Jan. 1, 1995]
  7. F J Loughnan letter of January 12, 1995 to Fr Violette. [FJLL2FrV Jan. 12, 1995]
  8. Fr. Jean Violette letter to F J Loughnan of January 21, 1995. [FrVL2FJL Jan. 21, 1995]
  9. F J Loughnan letter of February 11, 1995 to Fr Violette. [FJLL2FrV Feb. 11, 1995]
  10. Fr Jean Violette "Letter to Faithful" of March 1, 1995. [FrVL2F Mar. 1, 1995]
  11. F J Loughnan letter of March 21, 1995 to Fr Violette. [FJLL2FrV Mar. 21, 1995]
  12. Fr. James Peek Holy Cross Seminary "Letter to Friends and Benefactors" of July 3, 1996. [FrPHCSL2FB July 3, 1996]
  13. Fr. James Peek Holy Cross Seminary "Letter to Friends and Benefactors" of September 18, 1996. [FrPHCSL2FB Sept. 18, 1996]
  14. Fr Jean Violette "Letter to Faithful" of October, 1996. [FrVL2F Oct. 1996]
  15. Fr Jean Violette "The New Mass and Indefectibility" Catholic of November, 1996. [FrVNMI Nov. 1996]
  16. Fr. Jean Violette "Faith of Our Fathers Newsletter No. 56, Sep. Dec. 1996." [FOFN56 Sep./Dec. 1996]
  17. Fr. James Peek "Faith of Our Fathers Newsletter No. 56, Sep. Dec. 1996." [FOFN56 Sep./Dec. 1996]
  18. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, "Catholic" May 1997 - "The Jews in Latter Times." [TdeMJews May 1997]
  19. Fr. James Peek Holy Cross Seminary "Letter to Friends and Benefactors" of January 1, 1998. [FrPHCSB Jan. 1, 1998]
  20. "My Reasons For Withdrawing Support From The Society of St Pius X" of January 5, 1998. [FJLReasons Jan. 1, 1998]
  21. Letter from Bishop Bernard Fellay to F J Loughnan of February 25, 1998. [BFL2FJL Feb. 25, 1998]
  22. F J Loughnan letter of March 14, 1998 to Bishop Bernard Fellay. [FJLL2BF Mar. 14, 1998]
  23. Bishop Bernard Fellay, "The Superior General's Letter No. 54 to Friends and Benefactors, March 19, 1998. [BFL2F&B54 Mar. 25, 1998] - reproduced in "Holy Cross Seminary Letter to Friends and Benefactors" of April 1, 1998. [FrPL2F&B Apr. 1, 1998]
  24. Fr Jean Violette "Letter to Faithful" of May 1988, 1998. [FrVL2F May, 1998]
  25. F J Loughnan letter of May 4, 1998 to AD2000. (Essentially published June, 1998) [FJLL2AD2000 May 4, 1998]
  26. F J Loughnan allegations to AD2000 - with corresponding primary sources. [FJLSources June 1998]
  27. "Society of Saint Pius X Bulletin July/Aug 1998" - "A ROME AND ECONE HANDBOOK" [FrV & FrP July/Aug. 1998] Separately attached.
  28. Fr Jean Violette letter to AD2000 - published August 1998. [FrVL2AD2000 Aug. 1998]
  29. F J Loughnan letter of July 26, 1998 to AD2000. [FJLL2AD2000 July 26,1998]




Reproduction by F J Loughnan of letter of response from:



Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei"

N. 343/98
Rome, 27 October 1998

Mr. F. John Loughnan
10 Glendale Drive
Chirnside Park, Vic. 3116
AUSTRALIA

Dear Mr Loughnan

We wish to acknowledge receipt of your document, Statements and Allegations Made By Some Australian Members of The Society of St. Pius X, which you sent to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger for evaluation. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters that come within our particular competence.

First of all, we thank God that you have been able to be sufficiently objective about the claims of the Society of St. Pius X to leave it and return to full communion with the Church. We recognize that this has been a long journey for you and your wife and we trust that all that you have experienced has helped you to be a better Catholic, aware of the wounds of the Church in its members on earth, but even more conscious of its indefectibility.

You will have noted that we are that very Pontifical Commission referred to in Father Jean Violette's letter to you of 21 January 1995 as made up of "liberals, modernists who have infiltrated the positions of authority in the Church and who are using their authority to do away with Tradition..." We trust that you will now understand that this is not a fair description of us or of our often difficult and delicate work.

We will now attempt to address ourselves to your questions in the order in which you have raised them.

a. The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that 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. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).

Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.

b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that

the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass,and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

c. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what constitutes " formal adherence to the schism " inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as " refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him " (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.

d. It may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St. Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witnesses to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith.

e. We reiterate what we stated above: "The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church." Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium#22-25).

f. The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.

g. You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the various dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.

h. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily on the interpretation of the law. Any more authoritative response to your questions than the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that that Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible, but should be taken as norms of moral certitude.

i. Our response to your questions may be made public.

 

With prayerful best wishes I remain,

Sincerely yours in Christ,

 

Msgr. Camille Perl

Secretary

 

Copies of the above correspondence was sent to Fr Jean Violette, SSPX District Superior for Australia and to other SSPX priests and lay adherents.

Below is a copy of document dated November 9, 1998 sent to Fr Violette and some Australian clergy (SSPX and Catholic), and to some SSPX adherents and others:

 

An Open Letter To Adherents to The Society of St Pius X (SSPX)

On August 22, 1998 a dossier entitled Statements and Allegations Made By Some Australian Members of The Society of St Pius X was forwarded to Rome for the evaluation of the writings of Fathers Jean Violette and James Peek. Fr Violette, as Superior of the Australasian District of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), and Fr Peek, as Rector of the SSPX Holy Cross Seminary, produce two separate bulletins. Both have been instrumental in producing a thirty-three page anti-Catholic booklet called "A ROME AND ECONE HANDBOOK".

The dossier to Rome included copies of Letters "to Friends and Benefactors" and "to the Faithful" from Bishop Bernard Fellay, Frs Jean Violette and Frank Peek, articles in "Catholic" by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, (all of whom are SSPX schismatic clerics), letters to myself from Bishop Fellay and Fr. Violette and my relative responses, the first six pages of "My Reasons For Withdrawing Support From The Society Of St Pius X", letters to AD2000 from myself and Fr. Violette, an "Open Letter to the Society of St Pius X" by Dr Tim Pickford, and the SSPX document "A Rome And Econe Handbook."

The above was sent together with a covering letter to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who forwarded it to the responsible authority, the Pontifical Commission, Ecclesia Dei. A three page reply, dated October 27, 1998 has been received from Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary, of that Commission. His answers to the questions raised include the following:

(Copies of my letter to Cardinal Ratzinger and the response from Msgr Camille Perl were inserted here. The composite letters may be viewed at

http://www.freeyellow.com/members3/matt1618/schism.html (F.J.L.)

Copies of the initial letter to Rome, Msgr. Perl's reply and a covering letter to the recipients were forwarded to a number of SSPX adherents (including Fr Jean Violette, Donald McLean and Des McDonnell) and to some other interested parties.

Fr Violette's two page response of November 9, 1998 to the matter may be summarised as follows:

His Paragraph 1:

1. "Always the same old story, nothing new.";

2. "I only wish he would try to refute (the Handbook)...and justify his claim of schism and excommunication...";

3. "...other(s)...don't agree with his (Msgr Perl's) claims...they are honest."

His Paragraphs 2-10:

Included the alleged quotations from the above "honest others" - Cardinal Lara, Count Neri Capponi, Professor Geringer, etc.

His Paragraph 11:

1. "Needless to say these are experts in the field...I don't think it will make much difference on your views..."

2. "...I will continue...to be faithful..."

3. "...1958 years of constant Church teaching cannot be wrong..."



The following edited response was forwarded to Fr Violette on December 8, 1998 under the title An Open Letter To Fr Jean Violette :



Your Paragraph 1.1,

From April 20, 1997 to January 5, 1998 I researched and compiled My Reasons For Withdrawing Support From The Society Of St Pius X - in order to de-toxify myself from the pernicious indoctrination and propaganda of the SSPX. It was not done to denigrate the Church nor to cast doubt on any of the Church's doctrines, dogmas, true devotion to the saints, relics or practices. I believe that it does show that

It appears that, until recent times, Church officials have been largely unwilling to admit to past errors, and that attitude appeared to have been similar to that of the three blind monkeys! I believe I have demonstrated, in the following pages (of My Reasons...), that there were indeed an accumulation of accretions, legends and pious traditions which ought to have been dealt with well prior to the Council of Trent, but some of which may well have been dealt with by Vatican II, even if devoid of "touch" or "feeling". (My Reasons..., p.5), and

With publicly expressed ideas like these, I believe that one would do equally as well in supporting, for example, the Shuckardites or any other group following the many "Bishops at Large" or schismatic cultists who, ultimately, reap the effects of introverted isolation. Thanks to the extremism of some of the priests of the Society of St Pius X in Australia, I now positively reject the above denied or affirmed notions [as detailed in my letter to AD2000 of June 1998]. (op. sit. p.6), and

The information contained in the following Sections 1, 2 and 3 (of My Reasons...) has been helpful to me to realise that the position held by the Society of St Pius X and "traditionalists" generally is unrealistic. It is a recall to memory of just how imperfect have been the human instruments chosen by God. It is not intended to be scandalous - if one wished to be scandalised, one could dwell on Abraham, quivering before the Pharaoh's officers and shamelessly offering them his wife, Sara, to save his own hide; or on Jacob, as he cowardly and cloyingly sets out to steal his brother's birthright; or on Noah, as he leaves the ark to build an altar then while becoming drunk he curses his own grandson; or on Lot's offer of his daughters to the Sodomites; or on the types of companions that Jesus lived amongst, dined with, chose to use as His messengers, and forgave. " (op. sit. p.6)

As Msgr. Perl put it: "...we trust that all that you have experienced has helped you to become a better Catholic, aware of the wounds of the Church in its members on earth, but even more conscious of its indefectibility." (Letter of 27 October 1998 N. 343/98).

I do not believe that you have seen "My Reasons..." - the completed version was sent to both Bishop Fellay and Archbishop George Pell. However, subsequent to and independently of it, I have discovered two very interesting Internet addresses:

1. http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas

and 2. http://sspx-schism.com

You may view these sites if you have access to the Internet via your computer, or through your local library. In any event, I have consolidated all of the data from the first site into a single file - of which I enclose some very pertinent extracts on the enclosed floppy disk. To whet your interest, I also enclose a hard copy of the two page contents of the file - The Anti-Catholic Nature Of The Society Of St Pius The Tenth (SSPX).

I have not yet finished viewing the contents of the second address, but there is a very interesting section which examines cults, and which has a compelling conclusion that the SSPX is, indeed, a cult.

Now you DO have something "new"!

Your Paragraph 1.2

With your "I only wish" you descend to the depths of Pope Paul VI's "volumus", which you bitterly (but, no doubt, with some justification) criticise. You say:

"I only wish he would try to refute (the Handbook )... and justify his claim of schism and the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre."

1. Thus, you acknowledge only a "claim" that Pope John Paul II has declared that the Archbishop (and the four priests consecrated bishops by him were and are (for those living) in schism and excommunicated.

2. Further, in claiming "no they are not" - you require the Pope/or his representative to "justify his claim".

Consider the following, from A WARNING ON THE OLD CATHOLICS: FALSE BISHOPS, FALSE CHURCHES by Rev. Anthony Cekada, SSPX, Originally published in The Roman Catholic magazine, 1980; it is extracted from http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas

[While this material was written by a former Society of St. Pius the Tenth (SSPX) priest, it is, nevertheless, a definitive study of the Old Catholics. I think it is fair to say that the various factions of the so-called "traditionalist" (which more or less includes the Old Catholics) movement can sometimes be excellent sources of information about their "traditionalist" competitors. Fr. Cekada was one of the "nine" ousted from the SSPX in 1983 by Archbishop Lefebvre and The Roman Catholic magazine was the official organ of what was the Northeast District of the Society at that time. The other district was the southwest and its official publication was the Angelus. To my knowledge, Fr. Cekada has yet to be reconciled with the Catholic Church (February, 1998 - William P. Grossklas). ] (Actually his connection is now with the Mount St Michael [former Shuckardite] sede vacantist group. F.J.L.)

But first, from "The Society of St. Pius X Gets Sick" by Thomas W. Case, Fidelity Magazine, October 1992 -

"The sede vacantist question brings us back to the United States. Three previously Lefebvrite priests, Fathers Cekada, Dolan and Sanborn, have now split from the Pius V Society, which Fr. Kelly had formed when he broke with Lefebvre, to become involved in varying degrees with the cult at Mount St. Michael, whose pretense to Catholicism rests on its connection to the Bishop Thuc (of South Vietnam) lineage. As Lefebvrite seminarians proposed for the priesthood back in the 1970s, these three encountered opposition because of their openly expressed sede vacantism. A delegation of American priests warned Lefebvre.

But the Archbishop. knowing their standpoint ordained them anyway. Then, in 1983, Lefebvre used that excuse, sede vacantism, to kick Fr. Kelly and the others out of the Society. The accusation must have rung hollow, given Lefebvre's own leanings. Especially since Richard Williamson, openly a sede vacantist as a seminarian at Econe, was later made bishop for North America.

The real reason for Kelly's ouster was his greed and power-mongering, and Williamson's enmity. Kelly and Cekada had put their own names on a lot of Pius X property deeds in the Cincinnati area. There are strong hints that Kelly wanted to take over the whole Society in the United States. Williamson, who eventually came out on top, had bad-mouthed Kelly as long ago as the early 70s, when the two of them walked the seminary grounds at Econe. Now Kelly has his own little sect in Oyster Bay, N.Y., along with a few Pius V Society chapels dotted around the country. Many of these are engaged in property litigation, since they were originally owned by the Society of St. Pius X."

And, now from Fr Cekada, but please bear in mind that what he then wrote could be applied to the SSPX or SSPXer of today:

4. A typical fiction which an Old Catholic will try to promote is a denial that his group is schismatic or heretical. Invariably, such a person will point to another group, supposedly distinct from his own, and say that it is schismatic or heretical. For instance, an Old Catholic may tell you we are not Old Catholics, but Old Roman Catholics. There is a difference. The other group is schismatic and heretical. We are legitimate." Such talk is nonsense. There are no real differences among all these groups, no matter what name they go by. They all originate, in some tenuous way or another, in the Jansenist heresy and schism. Common sense tells us that if something was hatched from a duck's egg, if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

Your Paragraph 1.3

Now this is a "doosey"! You are talking about "honest men" - and, indeed, they (Cardinal Lara, Count Neri Capponi, Fr. Gerald Murray, etc.) are honest men. But the Society (including yourself) are NOT "honest men"!

1. In my letter to you of January 12, 1995 I claimed of you that "Those words (quoted from your newsletter of January 1, 1995) make you appear to be a deceiver - or, at least, an attempted deceiver!"

2. In my letter of February 11, 1995 I claimed that "The essence of my 'problem' with you, Fr Violette, is the perception of truth. This also was a part of the case with Dr Pickford (which you chose to ignore);"

3. On March 17, 1995 I took you to task for manipulating the words, the paragraphs from Dr Pickford's "Open Letter..."

You claim that "...other(s)...don't agree with his (Msgr Perl's) claims...they are honest." Now I refer to:

Your Paragraphs 2 to 10:

These paragraphs are precise copies from the glossy brochure "IS THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X SCHISMATIC? EXCOMMUNICATED? ROME SAYS NO. CAN ANYONE GO TO THEIR LATIN MASSES? YES

Here you present me with a REAL dilemma as to the SSPX's untruths and misrepresentations!

I refer you to the refutation of these "untruths and misrepresentations" in the attachments:

1. SCHISMATICS SQUIRMING, William P. Grossklas' account [partial] of the interview between Count Neri Capponi and Roger McCaffrey (extracted from http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas):

McCaffrey: "My own view is that no matter what you can say about 1988, the fact is that by 1990 or '91, three Lefebvre bishops consecrated another bishop for the diocese of Campos, Brazil. And they can play with words, but the fact is that the Pope had appointed a bishop to the diocese of Campos. Now the Lefebvre bishops said: 'We're consecrating this bishop for traditional Catholics in Campos, he's not claiming jurisdiction.' But de facto he is claiming jurisdiction in that diocese. And I claim that is schismatic in tendency - is schismatic. Do you agree?"

Capponi: "I agree perfectly."

Count Capponi went on to say, "Not only does this action in Campos definitely have a schismatic flavor about it, but I should say that some attitudes - not of all members of the Society of St. Pius X, but of quite a lot of them - are becoming increasingly schismatic."

McCaffrey: "Well, let me give you an example. They have actually made a statement about the new code (of Canon Law), saying they don't adhere to it. And that's the only code we have - agree?"

Capponi: "Exactly. I think that they exaggerate there. It's all very well for a jurist to criticize the technical wording of the new code, say that it is imprecise, say that it is ambiguous at times. But not to adhere to the new code is - well, there are schismatic tendencies."

McCaffrey: "There is such a thing as a 'spirit of schism' - and I think there is a spirit of schism among the leaders of the Pius X Society. Do you agree?"

Capponi: "Exactly."...

Capponi: "I don't mean to be laudatory about the Society of St. Pius X. The Society has many faults. I don't agree with lots of things that they do. I mean their attitude in moral theology is very strongly Jansenistic. Their attitude is sometimes extremely uncharitable. And, as I say, there's a strong spirit of schism now in the Society that did not exist at the time of Msgr. Lefebvre. In a sense, curiously enough, Msgr. Lefebvre kept that spirit out."

McCaffrey: "Except at the end. Did you know that after he broke with Rome, he wrote to Archbishop Mayer of Campos, urging him to consecrate a bishop for the diocese of Campos?"

Capponi: "That is going in the schismatic direction."

McCaffrey: "But Michael Davies would agree with you that at least until the very end, Lefebvre was strongly inclined to maintain a unity, a formal unity."

Capponi: "What I criticize Lefebvre for is not so much his action, is not so much as having violated canon law, as having gone back on one of the most ancient, the most fundamental human attitudes: Once you have given your word, you don't go back! He had signed. Once you sign, once you agree that the person with which you have come to an agreement is trustworthy, and you agree with him - you stick to your agreement! You don't go back on it!"

2. CAUGHT IN A LIE - a letter of June 14, 1996 from Fr Gerald Murray to Fr Scott (extracted from http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas )

Part of the following letter was sent on June 14, 1996, by Fr. Gerald Murray to the US District Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Peter R. Scott, of the traditionalist order founded by the late excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It was written to protest misstatements and to correct misquotations of Fr. Murray's remarks to us (Latin Mass magazine ) in the Fall 1995 issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------



Fr. Peter R. Scott, District Superior
c/o Regina Coeli House
2918 Tracy Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64109
Phone: 816-753-0073, Fax: 816-753-3560

June 14, 1996

I was recently sent a copy of your pamphlet, "Is the Society of Saint Pius X Schismatic? Excommunicated? Rome Says No." In this publication you make use of modified quotations from my interview in the Fall 1995 issue of The Latin Mass. You have intentionally misquoted me and even put words into my mouth. I shall illustrate this flagrant dishonesty below....

...You have misquoted me extensively in support of your propagandistic assertions. You naturally ignored my critical remarks directed towards the Society of St. Pius X in the interview.

I cannot expect you to cite what is not in your favor. But I can and do expect you to report my remarks truthfully and completely, and in their proper context, in your publication. Instead, you have fabricated and falsified my remarks. This is thoroughly dishonorable and disreputable. And it is entirely shameful to attempt to legitimize your claims by invoking my wrongly alleged status as a doctor of canon law.

I demand that you withdraw this publication from circulation immediately. To do otherwise is to engage in public lying about what I have said. The public record of my remarks in The Latin Mass contradicts you. You have an obligation in truth and justice not to spread falsehoods, and in particular not to represent me as saying things I did not say, while leaving out the things I did say, but which you wish I had not said.

A refusal to remove this misleading pamphlet from circulation would confirm for me that your misrepresentation of my words was indeed wholly intentional, and that you are remorseless regarding your falsification of my actual statements.

I expect you to do the honorable thing and immediately withdraw this pamphlet. If you refuse to remove this pamphlet from further circulation, I will be compelled to take action to uphold my right to be accurately quoted for publication.

Rev. Gerald E. Murray, Rome, Italy





THE STORY OF THE VANISHING SCHISM: THE STRANGE CASE OF CARDINAL LARA,
by John Beaumont and John Walsh Fidelity Magazine, March 1994.
(extracted from http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas)



...The real Cardinal Lara puts the record straight

The first thing we did was to write to Cardinal Lara, explaining that he was being quoted as stating that Archbishop Lefebvre was not in schism, and asking him to clarify exactly what he had stated on the occasion in question. Cardinal Lara's reply was as follows:

"You bring to my attention a matter of importance. You asked if I could tell you what exactly I said in the interview of 10th July 1988. The substance of what I said is as follows: 'In the case of Lefebvre and the four priests consecrated bishops by him, there are two offenses canonically speaking, that they have committed. The fundamental offense is that of schism, that is, refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and breaking communion with the Church. This offence they had already previously committed. Only that, now, the second offense, that of consecrating bishops, formalizes, in a certain sense. and concretizes the first, and makes it explicit. Schism is a delict which can be personal. It does not require having a number of people. Individuals can do it on their own. Lefebvre and his followers, inasmuch as they refused submission to the Pope, were already, by that fact itself, in schism. The intent of the act of consecrating bishops is already to create a church with its own hierarchy. In this sense, the consecration of bishops becomes an act of schism. One should keep in mind, however, that the act of consecrating bishops is not in itself a schismatic act. In fact, in the Code, where offenses are treated, these two are treated in two distinct headings. There are delicts against religion and the unity of the Church. And these are apostasy (i.e. renouncing the faith), schism and heresy. Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate is, on the other hand, an offense against the proper exercise of one's ministry. For example, there was an excommunication of the Vietnamese Archbishop, Ngo Dinh Thuc in '76 and '83 for an episcopal consecration, but it was not considered a schismatic act because there was no intent to break with the Church. Ngo Dinh Thuc represents a pitiable situation, as there is some mental imbalance.

With regard to Econe, Lefebvre and the four priests, they are under two excommunications: one for the offense of schism, the other, reserved to the Apostolic See, for the offense of consecrating a bishop without a pontifical mandate.' I hope that this is helpful for you." (Letter to John Beaumont, dated May 26th, 1993)...

...Another misrepresented canonist

As with the ease of Cardinal Lara, however, the version given by Professor Geringer was very different. In his letter to us he expressed his position as follows: "I would like to say that at the time in an interview with the radio I explicitly declared that through the consecration of the four bishops by Lefebvre the schism had become definitive, and that Lefebvre and his adherents had lost all their rights within the Church." (letter to John Beaumont dated August 17th, 1993)

Professor Geringer went on to make the point that in the interview in question he had also dealt with the need for moral fault before the incurring of a penalty and the question of a mitigation of a penalty where actions are done on the basis of personal conviction. He concludes his letter, however, with the statement that "there can be no doubt that Lefebvre and his adherents are de facto schismatic."

3. THE VANISHING SCHISM REVISITED: WILL THE REAL CARDINAL LARA PLEASE STAND UP (AGAIN)? by John Beaumont, Fidelity Magazine, November 1996. (extracted from http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas)

...In addition, in a certain sense, the figure of Cardinal Castillo Lara is secondary to the main issue, which is whether, in fact, Archbishop Lefebvre committed the offense of schism. It does not require canonists to set out what the position is in order to know that there is a schism. It is the Church that has the authority to decide these matters, and here we know that already the Church has decided the question. Once one appreciates the authentic Catholic teaching on papal primacy, and compares this with the false version put out by the Society of St. Pius X (in which all papal decisions are up for review), one realizes that the opinions of a canonist cannot stand against a clear decision by the Vicar of Christ, the successor of St. Peter. Catholic tradition enjoins the faithful to obey the latter.

Furthermore, there is no higher decision making body:

"[A] decision of the Apostolic See, whose authority has no superior, may be revised by no one, nor may anyone examine. judicially, its decision" (Vatican I, Constitution on the Church, Pastor Aeternus, Ch. III ). "[T]here is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff" (Code of Canon Law, canon 333(3))....

...1) The SSPX establishes seminaries, churches, chapels and priories throughout the world, without any reference to the local ordinaries in whose dioceses it carries out these acts.

2) It ordains priests without the dismissorial letters required by canon law.

3) It hears confessions and celebrates marriages without jurisdiction.

4) It gives holy communion to persons who are well known sede vacantists.

5) It refused Pope Paul VI's command to close the seminary at Econe and to wind up the SSPX.

6) It carries out confirmations in other bishops' dioceses contrary to the Council of Trent.

7) It purports to accept John Paul II as Pope, and yet rejects parts of the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by him in his capacity as supreme legislator.

8) Finally in 1988, the SSPX consecrated four bishops, knowing that this was against the express will of the Pope and then, in 1991, proceeded to consecrate a further bishop in a diocese (Campos in Brazil) where, as the SSPX itself recognizes, there is already a valid bishop.

The conclusion which was drawn in the article "Schism, Obedience and the Society of Pius X" is just as relevant today: [H]ere is an organization which pays no regard whatsoever to the commands and laws of legitimate authority in the Church and which refuses to do the express will of the Supreme Pontiff in matters of great importance for the visible unity of the Church. Put all of these things together, and what we have is an autonomous organization, a petite eglise, an independent church. If this does not constitute schism, what does?

...To end on a positive note, the one thing that should be emphasized in this whole sorry affair is the extent of the real evidence for the Lefebvrist schism. All in all we have the following items of evidence:

(a) The decision of the Pope that there is a schism.

(b) The decision of the Catholic Church to the same effect.

(c) The teaching of Cardinal Castillo Lara former President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, again, that there is a schism.

(d) The teaching of Pope Pius XII that an episcopal consecration against the will of the Pope is an offense against divine law as well as against human law (Apostolorum Principis [1958]).

(e) As a matter of canon law the act of 30th June 1988 fits the definition of schism contained in the Code of Canon Law. It is not any of us who decide this. The Church in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta does so. Canon law can only be interpreted by the law-maker (Canon 16).

(f) Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus requires Catholics to obey decisions of the Holy See in matters of this kind.

(g) The Society of St. Pius X is unable to cite from 2000 years of Tradition any pope doctor or council to justify episcopal consecration against the express will of the Pope.

(h) The Society of St. Pius X and its apologists have to misquote a canonist in order to defend their case. In addition as we have shown in "Schism, Obedience and the Society of St. Pius X," the SSPX even has to rewrite the Catholic definitions of schism and obedience to justify its position.

What more evidence do these people want? Our own experience has shown us that even an ex cathedra definition by the Pope, or a direct revelation from Our Lord Himself, would not move some of them. Some would no doubt say, "But, Cardinal Lara says. . . " Has it now come to such a stage that, for traditionalists, a schism is decided by the authoritative voice of a Davies, a Scott, or a Williamson? Heaven preserve us from such a break with Tradition. Whatever qualities and merits these people have, it is obvious that not one of them knows what the primacy of Peter is all about.

Your Paragraph 11.1:

"Needless to say these are experts in the field...I don't think it will make much difference on your views..."

I reply:

On the contrary! The honest opinions of all persons are valued by me. The dishonest ones are to be rejected!

Your Paragraph 11. 2:

The following extract also comes from A WARNING ON THE OLD CATHOLICS: FALSE BISHOPS, FALSE CHURCHES by Rev. Anthony Cekada, SSPX, Originally published in The Roman Catholic magazine, 1980. Again, please look at the obvious applicability to the SSPX and SSPXer: (extracted from http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas )

Old Catholic Sects: General Observations

We will now make a few observations of a more general nature, drawn from our research for this article, and from our own contacts with the representatives of various Old Catholic sects over the past few years.

1. The first thing one notices when one begins to study these sects is that there are indeed a large number of sects calling themselves Old Catholic. It seems that there are about as many as there are Old Catholic bishops. Professor Parkinson might observe that "The number of Old Catholic Churches is directly proportional to the number of Old Catholic bishops available."

2. This phenomenon is joined to the fact that the Old Catholics foment what seems to be a never ending series of schisms among themselves. This is explained by the fact that they began in schism. It is understandable, therefore, that they should have so many schisms among themselves.

3. Old Catholic clergy are inclined to excommunicate each other at the slightest provocation. (At the drop of a miter?) This is borne out by Peter Anson's book on their forebears, and by studying some of their more recent activities.

4. A typical fiction which an Old Catholic will try to promote is a denial that his group is schismatic or heretical. Invariably, such a person will point to another group, supposedly distinct from his own, and say that it is schismatic or heretical. For instance, an Old Catholic may tell you we are not Old Catholics, but Old Roman Catholics. There is a difference. The other group is schismatic and heretical. We are legitimate." Such talk is nonsense. There are no real differences among all these groups, no matter what name they go by. They all originate, in some tenuous way or another, in the Jansenist heresy and schism. Common sense tells us that if something was hatched from a duck's egg, if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

5. Most of these groups distort history in an attempt to prove their claims. A quick reading of some of the literature they publish demonstrates this. They distort the Jansenist controversy and avoid giving an honest account of the outrageous activities of Mathew and Vilatte.

6. Virtually all members of the Old Catholic groups are apostates, that is, they were formerly members of the Catholic Church, who joined the Old Catholics later in life. Almost no one in this country is born an Old Catholic, and one would be hard put indeed to find an Old Catholic clergyman who had formerly been a Catholic.

7. For the most part, these sects are presided over by clergymen who are ignorant in matters of religion. Some are trained for a short period of time by ignorant superiors, others "study on their own for a while, others grant themselves degrees from non-existent universities, while still others are simply ordained without any pretense of an education at all.

8. As well, old Catholics promote the false notion that valid ordination renders their work legitimate. We know, however, that the heresy and schism which they have promoted in the past and which they continue to promote in the present can never be rendered legitimate by "valid ordination." St. Thomas is very specific on this point: "I answer that, as was said above, heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it."

Finally, what are the consequences if you assist at the services performed by members of these sects or receive the sacraments from them?

1. You commit sin. St. Thomas is very clear on this point: "Heretics, schismatics and excommunicates have been forbidden by the Church's sentence to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore, whoever hears their Mass, or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin."

2. You violate Church Law. "The faithful are not allowed to assist actively in any way, or to take active part in the religious services of non-Catholics."

3. You deny the Faith. Active participation in non-Catholic worship "is simply a denial of the Catholic faith, and a recognition of an unorthodox form of worship."

4. You worship God falsely, since you "mingle errors and deception with the worship of the true God."

5. You are suspected of heresy. "Whoever acts contrary to the prescriptions of canon 1258 and takes part in non-Catholic services (even if the service is one that heretics have in common with us... is suspected of heresy. (c. 2316)" (old code of canon law)

It is clear, then, from what we have said in this article that no Roman Catholic should have anything to do with "Old Catholicism," no matter what name it goes by. History proves this, a study of modern-day Old Catholic sects proves this, and Catholic theology proves this.

Our Lord exhorts us in the Holy Gospel to judge a tree by its fruit. Our study has shown that the fruit borne by the old Catholic movement, from Jansenius to Dollinger to Vilatte to Mathew to the present day, has been heresy in doctrine, chaos in discipline, ignorance in preaching, doubt and schism in the conferral of the sacraments and ultimately the loss of many souls who have been led outside of the fold of Christ.

Let us pray that faithful Catholics are not deceived by these sects, and let us pray those in error may by the grace of God be led back to the unity and truth which the one true Church alone can give

Your Paragraph 11. 3:

Fr Ramon Angles, in his August 1998 Bulletin for St Mary's Academy, advised that "More than 1000 relics are exposed to the worship of our students and parishioners." Now, I have no idea as to the authenticity of those relics; but the sheer number in one place is somewhat reminiscent of the efforts of other European collectors. Would you too have been as uncritical (as you are today - "...1958 years of constant Church teaching cannot be wrong...") when faced with some of the following:

Note well: I do not claim that anything following involves infallibility or indefectibility. Now, at this point I provided six pages of interesting information (which I will not repeat here) including the following:

a) General relics. Clay which had been left over after God had fashioned Adam; the footprint and feather of an angel; manna from the wilderness; Fragment of the bread from the Feeding of the 5,000; the whole skeleton of the donkey that carried Jesus into Jerusalem - plus a spare tail; Sodom and Gomorrah apples; the rods of Moses and Aaron

b) Relics of Jesus. His birthday gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh; His swaddling clothes; His nappies; His tears, teeth, blood, hair, fingernails, up to 15 foreskins, and even 3 of His navels!; His tunic and coats; loincloth, sponge, chain & flagellation cords from the passion several lances which pierced His side; multiple thorns and "true" nails from the cross; chalices (plural) - even the table and tablecloth from the Last Supper; Jesus' footprints (plural); more than 150 nails from the True Cross; several of His burial shrouds;

c) Relic of Judas At Saint-Corneille-de-Compiègne - a towel (bearing still the imprint of Judas' dirty foot).

c) Relics of the BVM Items of clothing included Our Lady's belts, girdles, birthing undergarment, dresses, veil and, in the late tenth century Pope Gregory V even found her wedding ring! Personal items included: a lock of the Virgin's hair! - worth 2 million years indulgence! AND relatively copious quantities of "drops of milk reputed to be from the breast of the Virgin."

"...sixty-nine sanctuaries of the blessed milk, forty-six of them in France."

"...in Norfolk the pilgrim's route to the great abbey at Walsingham was known as the Milky Way, after the phial containing drops of Our Lady's milk which were displayed there."

d. What was that about "...1958 years of constant Church teaching cannot be wrong..."?

d.1) St Gregory I (the Great) {64th} said: priests' marriages were VALID but the priest had to choose; wife or ministry! Calixtus II {160th} would later contradict Gregory I by decreeing that all clerical marriages were to be broken up - the marriages were INVALID!

d 2) In 962, during the pontificate of John XII, marriage was common among the clergy (all priests of the diocese of Verona, for instance, were married. In Milan a married priest was held in higher esteem because an unmarried one was presumed to have a mistress.

d 3) "Parish priests' houses and hovels', as the historian Giraldus Cambrensis puts it, [were] 'filled with bossy mistresses, creaking cradles, newborn babes and squawking brats'. " (AHOC 208.)

d 4) Erasmus was born in 1466 and "was the bastard son of a priest, by a washerwoman. This was the common fate of a vast number of people at the time. It testifies to the unwillingness of the Church to sanction clerical marriage and its inability to stamp out concubinage. Probably as many as half the men in orders had 'wives' and families." "After his birth his parents no longer lived together. In an autobiographical fragment, written when he was already world famous, he concealed his bastardy indicating that it still rankled. His schooling was wretched."

d 5) The Council of Trent having left the question of communion in both kinds to his discretion, Pius IV {222nd} (who had three illegitimate children)

a) Conceded the chalice, at the discretion of the bishops, to the laity of Germany, Austria, Hungary, and other regions, but

b) Deferred the issue of married priests.

c) Nevertheless, it decreed that religious profession dissolved marriage.
e) Lucius III {169th P.} On the matter of clergy schismatically ordained during Alexander III's reign, Lucius was at first disposed to grant Frederick I Barbarossa's request for their restoration, but then he ruled that this could only be decided by a general council. This appears to mean that he believed that a General Council WAS superior to a pope.

f) Sixtus V {225th P.} (24 Apr. 1585 - 27 Aug 1590) In Apr. 1588 set about re-writing the Vulgate. With his Bull Aeternus Ille (May 2, 1590) he issued via the Vatican press a version which was so full of blunders that it had to be withdrawn after his death.

"By the fullness of Apostolic power,...this edition...is to be received and held true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned."

It was left to Gregory XIV {227th P.} to limit the damage - a bible issued with the plenitude of papal power, complete with the trimmings of excommunication on the whole church - and it was riddled with errors!

g) Pius XI {257th P.) 1930: In Casti connubi (on Christian Marriage - its excellence - the Pauline privilege) contrary to tradition, says that sex can be good and holy in itself! Further, "almost everything in (section 54) is against Christian tradition. Augustine and Gregory (the Great) expressly contradict everything in it. They did not distinguish between primary and secondary ends of marriage. Marriage was for procreation; that was not the primary end but the one end that could justify sexual intercourse. Any other purpose added to procreation was sin."



So what? One has to distinguish between what has to be believed and the acts and actions of those who create the "wounds of the Church in its members on earth..."(Msgr. Perl).

To Fr Violette and all other SSPXers - these are but a few samples from my 133 page submission to Bishop Bernard Fellay and Archbishop George Pell - My Reasons For Withdrawing Support From The Society Of St Pius X. There is no need here to comment or speculate on the negative things, and I repeat: I have not examined these matters to denigrate the Church nor to cast doubt on any of the Church's doctrines, dogmas, true devotion to the saints, relics or practices - to the contrary; I did it to de-toxify myself from the pernicious indoctrination and propaganda of the SSPX. I hope that this small contribution will help you to return to sanity.

The ONLY way for your wishes to come about, Fr Violette, is for you to return to full communion with the Catholic Church,

F J (John) Loughnan,
December 20, 1998.
jloughnan@hotmail.com

************************************





While Fr Violette's reply of December 12, 1998 stopped short of admitting anything, or apologising for anything - nevertheless it was pleasant and surprisingly brief. If the contents of the December 8 letter have convinced him of his errors, then for Fr Violette (as with myself) and for all of us who have been involved in the schism there a further step to take: following recognition of our crime of schism we must seek reconciliation with Holy Mother Church - else risk the inevitablity of perpetual schism for ourselves and our families. Oremus.

*************************************

Dear Mr Loughnan.

Thank you for your December 8th letter which I received yesterday.

Be assured of my daily prayers especially during this holy season of Advent and Christmas.

Sincerely,

Fr Jean Violette

**************************************



F. John Loughnan's Files on the SSPX

Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page