ECCLESIASTICAL DOCUMENTS
on the SCHISM and EXCOMMUNICATION OF
Archbishop Marcel LEFEBVRE and the SOCIETY OF ST PIUS XHow often have we heard protestations from adherents to the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) that:
the excommunication of Lefebvre and Co. was "unjust"; and/or "illegal"?
neither Lefebvre nor the bishops consecrated by him are schismatic nor excommunicated?
neither the SSPX priests nor the adherents to the SSPX are in a state of schism, nor are they excommunicated?
Canonical experts - such as Cardinal Lara (actually, that should be Cardinal Castillo Lara!) and Fr. Gerald Murray make claims similar to the above?
the SSPX ARE in communion with Pope John Paul II - and include his name in the Canon of the Mass?
and so on?
Well, the sad facts are that it would be difficult to find ANY person or party in the history of the Church who has not made similar claims after having been declared to be in a state of schism and excommunication!
That the SSPX have resorted to lies has been well documented by John Beaumont and John Walsh in
1993 - "The Story of the Vanishing Schism: the Strange Case of Cardinal Lara", and
1996 - "The Vanishing Schism Revisited: Will the Real Cardinal Lara Please Stand Up (Again)?", and my own
1999 - "The Flat Earth Society and the Society of St Pius X"Here now is a chronology of official ecclesiastical documents and communications on the matter. First of all, I will set out the documents in date order. Short appropriate excerpts from the documents will follow; the complete document may be viewed by cli9cking the link:
Documents on the Case
1. 1988, May 5 - PROTOCOL OF AGREEMENT between Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre
2. 1988, July 1 - DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION
3. 1988, July 2 - "ECCLESIA DEI" - Apostolic Letter of John Paul II
4. 1993, June 28 - USA APOSTOLIC NUNCIATURE to Mrs. PATRICIA MORLEY
5. 1995, Sept. 27 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Reply to Scott Windsor
6. 1996, Aug. 24 - THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATIVE TEXTS On The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre
7. 1996, Oct. 31 - Responses from THE PONTIFICAL CONGREGATION OF BISHOPS, and THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATIVE TEXTS
8. 1998, Oct. 27 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Reply to F. John Loughnan
9. 2002, Aug. 14 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Reply to unknown person [1]
10. 2002, Apr. 15 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Reply to unknown person [2]
11. 2002, Sept. 27 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Second Reply to unknown person [1]
12. 2003, Jan. 18 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl Communicated to Una Voce America - being a follow up to that of Sept. 27, 2002
- 1. 1988, May 5 - PROTOCOL OF AGREEMENT [Click the link to the left to view the full document.]
I, Marcel Lefebvre... :
- ...promise...
- ...declare that we will accept the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution, "Lumen Gentium" on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence owed it.
- ...certain points...which appear difficult to reconcile with tradition, we commit ourselves to a positive attitude...avoiding all polemics.
- ...that we will recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments ... according to the rites in the typical editions of the missal and rituals of the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
- ...we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, particularly those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, except for the special discipline conceded to the fraternity by particular law.
[...]
- JURIDICAL QUESTIONS
In what concerns lay people who seek the pastoral help of the society's communities: They remain under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishops but - notably for the liturgical rites of the society's communities - can look to these communities for the administration of the sacraments (for the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and marriage, notification of their own parish remains necessary; canons 878, 896, 1122).
- 2. 1988, July 1 - DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION [Click link to view full document.]
"Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre...has performed a schismatical act...and has therefore incurred the penalty...I declare...[him], and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication...[and also] Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer ... The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.
- 3. 1988, July 2 - "ECCLESIA DEI" - Apostolic Letter of John Paul II [Click link to view full document.]
"3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience...which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy --constitutes a schismatic act. [Lefebvre and his bishops] have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication...
"5. c)...Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication ...
- 4. 1993, June 28 - USA APOSTOLIC NUNCIATURE to Mrs. PATRICIA MORLEY [Click link to view full document.]
"2. At the same time the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith holds that
- those same facts referred to in the Decree [of Excommunication] on the whole do not conform to the liturgical and canonical norms;
- the five petitioners with their behavior cause grave nuisance, putting in danger the common good of the local Church;
- and therefore the local Bishop can avail himself of Canon 1373 of the Code of Canon Law, imposing upon them the foreseen punishment of interdict or other penalties, either medicinal or expiatory.
- 5. 1995, Sept. 27 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl
Reply to Scott Windsor [Click link to view full document.][...] the priests of the Society of St. Pius X [valid - but]... suspended "a divinis", that is prohibited by the Church from exercising their orders because of their illicit ordination.
The Masses ... are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing...not being able to assist at the ... the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.
While it is true that the participation in the Mass and sacraments at [SSPX chapels] 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 mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff... Father Peter R. Scott, ... deplores the "liberalism" of "those who refuse to condemn the New Mass as absolutely offensive to God, or the religious liberty and ecumenism of the postconcilliar church." With such an attitude the Society of St. Pius X is effectively tending to establish its own canons of orthodoxy and hence to separate itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff... such "refusal of submission... or the communion of the members of the Church subject to him" constitute schism. Hence we cannot encourage your participation in the Masses, the sacraments or other services conducted under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.
[...]
..."the Hawaiian case" ... does not confer the Church's approbation upon the Society of St. Pius X or those who frequent their chapels.
- 6. 1996, Aug. 24 - THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATIVE TEXTS On The Excommunication of Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre [Click link to view full document.]
1 .[...] it also appears clear ... that such a most grave act of disobedience formed the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic character.
2. [...] the Motu Proprio ... warns that a "formal adherence to the schism" ... would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church ... explicit reference to the "schismatic nature" of the aforesaid episcopal ordinations and mentions the most grave penalty of excommunication which adherence "to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre" would bring with it.
3. [...] the schismatic act ... did no more than draw to a conclusion, ... a process of distancing from hierarchical communion. ... the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.
4. [...] doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. [...] it does not seem ... any exempting or lessening circumstances ... necessity ... must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops...
5. [...] the Motu Proprio declares ...excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who "adhere formally" ... the exact import of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems ... such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:
one of internal nature, ... puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positi1ons contrary to the magisterium of the Church),
[...] an external character, ...externalising ... the most manifest sign ... the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts... possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions ... without going along with their schismatic spirit).
6. In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt ... that there is a formal adherence.
7. [...] the rest of the faithful ... an occasional participation ... done without making one's own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion ... does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence ... it is more difficult to judge their situation... intentions, and the putting into practice of this internal disposition...
8. [...]
9. [...]
10. [...]
- 7. 1996, Oct. 31 - Responses from THE PONTIFICAL CONGREGATION OF BISHOPS, and
THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATIVE TEXTS [Click link to view full document.](Excerpts from responses to a letter from the Very Reverend Norbert Brunner, Bishop of Sion, Switzerland, to the Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops, requesting clarifications regarding status of the followers of Monsignor Lefebvre. The responses are dated October 31, 1996.)
Response of the Pontifical Congregation of Bishops:
...The bishops ...are validly consecrated, but punished with the penalty of excommunication
...as to the priests. ordained [pre 1988] ...
did not incur excommunication, but are ...classed as acephalous priests ... and forbidden any "munus vel aliud sacrum ministerium" ...
...Baptism, the Eucharist and the anointing of the sick ... are valid, although illicit.
...Participation in their services is objectively illicit ...
...Assistance of the Faithful is not permitted, save in cases of real necessity.
...Those who participate occasionally and without the intention to adhere formally ... do not incur the penalty of excommunication.
Response of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts
...The schismatic act ... achieved nothing other than bringing to term, ... an ongoing separation ... the whole Lefebrist movement must be considered as schismatic, in view of the formal declaration of the supreme authority.
...[...] such adherence must imply two complementary elements: a) ...the first is by nature internal, ... b)...the second is external: ...
- 8. 1998, Oct. 27 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl
Reply to F. John Loughnan [Click link to view full document.]...your document...has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission...
...we thank God that you have been able to be sufficiently objective...to leave it [the SSPX] and return to full communion with the Church...
...we are that very Pontifical Commission referred to in Father Jean Violette's letter ... 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...
The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church...he declared that Mons. Lefebvre and the [SSPX bishops] have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged...
Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon... are still under the censure of excommunication.
...the [SSPX] priests...are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis... In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X...
...participation in the [SSPX] Mass...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...[such as]
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.
...because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending [SSPX] Masses...
...the Church has not officially declared what constitutes "formal adherence to the schism"... but the Code of Canon Law defines schism... 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.
...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.
We reiterate..."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 ...
- 9. 2001, Nov. 7 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl
Reply to unknown person #1 [Click link to view full document.]
- 10. 2002, Apr. 15 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl
Reply to unknown person #2 [Click link to view full document.]
- 11. 2002, Sept. 27 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl
second reply to unknown person #1 [Click link to view full document.]
- 12. 2003, Jan. 18 - "ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl
Communication to Una Voce America [Click link to view full document.]Letter [of Jan. 18, 2003] by Msgr. Perl...from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, concerning an article which appeared in The Remnant newspaper and various websites...
[...]
[...]Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant ... was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us.
What was presented in the public forum is an abbrereviated form...which omits much of our pastoral counsel...
[...]
[...]
)The priests...are validly ordained, but... suspended... To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
)...the Masses...are valid, but illicit...
In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:
"2. ...we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. ...
..."Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:
"3. It would seem that a modest contribution ... would be justified."
...the correspondent took the Commission to task ... we responded thus:
"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops ... However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the 'traditional' Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.
"You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a 'right' to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct... it constitutes an exception to the Church's law...
Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice."
[...]
View Complete Ecclesiastical Documents on the SSPX Schism and Excommunication
Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page