  |
SSPX and the Charge of Schism
Liberal "Catholics" and Neo-Catholics
from Novusordodom take a cruel delight in charging the
SSPX with schism
A "prejudice" has been described as an opinion
wandering abroad without any visible means of support. The
opinion that the SSPX are schismatic clearly falls into
this category.
As the SSPX was canonically established, being founded
by a Catholic Archbishop, Msgr Marcel Lefebvre, canonically
approved by a local ordinary, Bishop Charrière,
opened its first seminary in Ecône with the approval
of Bishop Adams, and even obtained a letter of praise
from Cardinal Wright.
Further, it has never been canonically suppressed; there
was an attempt by Bishop Mamie to illegally suppress
it in violation of canon law. It was after
this failed attempt to illegally suppress the SSPX that
the unjust persecution of the Society began, which ended
in its current irregular canonical situation. But
only those who inhabit the Alice in Wonderland world
of Novusordodom would equate an irregular canonical situation
with schism.
If unjust treatment by some members of the
hierarchy made one a schismatic, then St Joan of Arc
was a schismatic, as was the Australian saint, St Mary
of the Cross, who was solemnly excommunicated by the
Bishop of Adelaide, only to be canonised by Pope Benedict
XVI.
When you try and debate the issue with
liberals and neo-Catholics they go round and round in
circles. The
real reason they spread the calumny of the SSPX being
in schism is simple: they don't
like the SSPX - period. My
father, having fought in two world wars, was fond of
saying, "The only good German is a dead German." It
is a similar sort of blind, malicious, senseless prejudice
that we are confronting here, and one that it is equally
hopeless to try to rationally argue with.
 Letter
from the President of the Pontifical Council
for Christian Unity, Cardinal Edward Cassidy,
dated 3 May 1994
"The situation of the members of
this Society [SSPX] is an internal matter
of the Catholic Church. The Society
is not another Church or Ecclesial Community
in the meaning used in the Directory. Of
course, the Mass and Sacraments administered
by the priests of the Society are valid."
|
|
The first thing to note above is the
statement that the SSPX is an internal [our
emphasis] matter. If it is an internal matter
it cannot be a schism. A schism is by definition
an external matter, someone has broken away from
the Church and is thus external to it. The
second thing to note is that Cardinal Cassidy states
emphatically ("of course") that their
Mass and sacraments (i.e. baptism, confession, marriage,
confirmation, extreem unction, ordinations and the Holy
Communion) are valid.
 Letter
from The President of the Sacred Congregation
For The Clergy, Silvio Cardinal Oddi, 17 March
1984 [In answer to a family attending Mass at
an SSPX chapel as to whether such attendance
fulfilled their obligation for Sunday Mass]
"According to the New Code of Canon
Law, 'The obligation of assisting at
Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated
in a Catholic rite.... I hope that
settles your doubts."
|
|
What we have here is someone who was
going to Mass in a SSPX chapel, but was having scruples
about it - perhaps they had been listening to the chatter
of liberals and neo-Catholics - so they had written to
Rome for clarification. Cardinal Oddi has taken
the trouble to research their question and has kindly
come back with the assurance that attending Mass in a
SSPX chapel fulfils their Sunday obligation.
 The "Honolulu Decision" (Protocol
No. 14428, 4 June, 1993)
Decree of the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith (The Holy Office) under
signature of the Prefect, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
(the current Pope)
Background: six traditionalist
Catholics in Honolulu invited a bishop
from the SSPX to the island to confirm their children. The
Bishop of Honolulu responded by excommunicating
all six. One of the six appealed to Rome. The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ruled
as follows:
"This Congregation has examined
carefully all the available documentation
and has ascertained that the activities
engaged in by the Petitioner ... are
not sufficient to constitute the crime
of schism. Since [the Petitioner]
did not, in fact, commit the crime of
schism and thus did not incur the 'latae sententiae'
penalty, it is clear that the Decree
of the Bishop lacks the precondition
on which it is founded. This Congregation,
noting all of the above, is obliged to
declare null and void the aforesaid Decree
of the Ordinary of Honolulu"
|
|
What should be noted here is that Rome
has actually overruled the local bishop. The local
bishop subsequently appealed this ruling and asked that,
if he could not excommunicate the six, he be allowed
to impose a lesser penalty. Cardinal Ratzinger
would not even permit this face saving exercise, and
responded firmly in the negative. Thus
confirming that as far as Rome is concerned the
six had not committed any offence meriting even the mildest
penalty
 Letter from Count Neri Capponi
D.CN.L. - Lateran (Doctor of Canon Law), LL.D.
- Florence (Doctor of Laws) and Professor Emeritus
of Canon Law at the University of Florence
Note: Count Neri Capponi is an
Accredited Advocate of the Holy Roman Rota and
Accredited Advocate of the Apostolic Signatura (the
Holy See's highest appeals tribunal),
"The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre
simply said: 'I am creating bishops in
order that my priestly order can continue. They
do not take the place of other bishops. I
am not creating a parallel church.' Therefore,
this act was not, per se, schismatic."
|
|
Count Neri Capponi is one of the world
leading canon lawyers, and although we must concede that
his opinion does not carry the weight of a Cardinal Prefect
of a Roman Congregation, it surely carries more weight
than the likes of the massed ranks of amateur lay canon
lawyers who are queuing up to assure us that the SSPX
are in schism.
"The excommunication affects
individuals, not institutions ... An
episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical
mandate raises the danger of a schism"
|
|
By writing "The excommunication
affects individuals, not institutions" the
Pope is underscoring the fact that the original excommunication applied
to the four bishops, not to the priests or the faithful
of the SSPX.
Obviously the Pope does not considered
that they are in schism, because writing it "raises
the danger of schism" would be nonsense
if he did. If you were dying of cancer, you don't
expect your surgeon to say, "If
you are not careful, you will catch cancer!"
---oOo---
There you have it: three heads of Roman
Congregations, one the most senior canon lawyers on the
planet and the Pope himself have told us that
"A" the SSPX are not in schism, "B" one
can fulfil one's Sunday Mass obligation in their chapels
and "C"
all their sacraments are valid
The Lifting of the Aledged Excummunications
 The Prefect of the Congregation for
Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, wrote on the
21 January 2009,
"Based on the faculties expressly
granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in
virtue of the present Decree, I remit from Bishops
Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard
Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure
of latae sententiae excommunication declared
by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, which I declare
deprived of any juridical effect, from the present
date ... "
Note: if it is "deprived of
any juridical effect, from the present date," that
must mean that the late great Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
is no longer considered excommunicated by Rome. Whilst
I suspect that liberals and neo-Catholics are generally
too cerebrally challenged to get the point, it should
be clear to most that one cannot be excommunicated
by a decree that has been "deprived of any judicial
effect" by the highest authority in the Church.
|
  |
|
|
(
