Now the serpent was more subtle then any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made…And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. [1]

Discussing what "the 'traditionalist' position" is can often be as confusing as discussing what "the Protestant position" is. Therefore the reader who expects this section to be exhaustive in that extent will be disappointed. Pinpointing what "the 'traditionalist' position" is may not be an easy undertaking but there are some tendencies and traits that most of those who attempt to argue from this standpoint have in common. One element that is sadly not uncommon is sophistic argumentation. Another is an at-times blatant disingenuousness that can be overlooked by those who have a psychological investment in the overall worldview that self-styled 'traditionalism' seeks to espouse. One classic example of the kind of deliberate deception this writer is referring to will be examined in this section. The culprit in this case is the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

Now it is true this treatise is focused on 'traditionalism' as a whole. However, most of the views of the SSPX mirror those of the other groups that call themselves 'traditionalists' and the deception that will be shown in this section are prevalent to all of the groups that are not in union with Rome. It is also true that many if not most people who attend SSPX churches and who read and collect this kind of material do so with the presumption that the SSPX is fair and above board in their presentation of the facts. Sadly though, they are not and this section will refute the credibility of the SSPX to present facts and document sources fairly. The reader though is asked to not presume that just because the SSPX is the direct target of this section that other self-styled 'traditionalist' groups are not also implicitly indicted as well. For these kinds of errors are commonplace and time and space constraints prevents examining literature from every group that is antagonistic to Rome - all of whom will go to the kind of absurd lengths to preserve their positions as the Society does in the piece of literature we will examine below. The picture will not be a pretty one but then often the Truth is not pretty to those that are opposed to it.

It is not uncommon to find countless periodicals, tracts, and even many books written on the subject of schism by these kinds of groups. The reason is because the subject of schism is one that self-styled 'traditionalists' are sensitive to. They know that schism and heresy are sins and if they are are of a formal nature the result if not rectified before death is damnation. They also know that if they do not put up a good argument as to why they are not in schism, many well-meaning folks who attend their churches would stop going there. This url will examine a pamphlet put out by the SSPX that defends their claim to not be in schism or excommunicated. The title of the pamphlet reads Is the Society of Saint Pius X Schismatic? Excommunicated? Rome Says No. The intention of this url is to show that the SSPX seeks to take advantage of the ignorance of the average churchgoer on the intricacies of canon law and other matters. And in addition, they are without a shadow of doubt bearing false witness in the cases of the people they bring forward as testifiers on their behalf in this pamphlet and other sources that they circulate (Exo. 20:16; Deut. 5:20).

I - The Society's Opening Statement:

As the charge of bearing false witness is a grave one, it would seem to this writer that posting the entire text of the pamphlet unedited and without comment before its facts are examined is the only way to be fair to the accused. Therefore, here is their position presented first without editing and free of any editorials:

Archbishop Lefebvre : NOT GUILTY

What's it all about?

In November 1970, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre formally founded the Society of Saint Pius X, in order to train traditional priests and keep the traditions of the Church. The Society was officially blessed and approved by the Church. An American, Cardinal Wright, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, wrote, of the Society of Saint Pius X: "This Association has already exceeded the frontiers of Switzerland, and several ordinaries, in different parts of the world, praise and approve it. All of this, and especially the wisdom of the norms which direct and govern this Association, give much reason to hope for its success...the Society will certainly be able to conform to the end...for the distribution of the clergy in the world."

Eighteen years later, in June of 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops in order to guarantee the continuation of a work blessed and approved by the Church. Rome had agreed in principle on the point of episcopal consecration, but did not agree on the Archbishop's choice of candidates. He, nevertheless, went ahead with the consecrations, despite Rome's disapproval. As a consequence...

CARDINAL GANTIN:

The Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, wrongly declared that Archbishop Lefebvre had performed a "schismatic act" by consecrating the four bishops in 1988 without papal permission and warned "the priests and the Faithful...not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur the very grave penalty of excommunication." Cardinal Gantin erroneously quoted the Church's Law (Canon 1364 s.1): "a schismatic act incurs automatic excommunication," but since there was no schism, there could be no excommunication.

POPE JOHN PAUL II

On the following day, the Pope made a similar, but non-juridical statement: "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law (Canon 1364)." Yet, as his experts later proved: there was no schism in the first place, and so there could be no excommunication!

Much scaremongery resulted from this, with many priests and bishops, not well versed in the laws of the Church, brandishing such outrageously false statements and threats as: It is a mortal sin to attend a Society of Saint Pius X Mass, or that anybody doing so, would find themselves automatically excommunicated and in schism, etc. Too many scaremongers have been speaking out on an issue they know very little about and many persons were frightened by their untruths and exaggerations.

However, experts in Church Law and several high-ranking cardinals are in agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre did not perform a schismatic act and, consequently, is neither excommunicated on the grounds of schism or on any other grounds. The label of "Schismatic & Excommunicated" cannot be applied to Archbishop Lefebvre, nor any of his followers, for it lacks foundation and validity, which is what the Church's experts have been saying since 1988--the year of Archbishop Lefebvre's four episcopal consecrations.

In this article you will see just who has been saying what. We are grateful for the objective reasoning, clarity and lucidity of the Church's experts, who have finally destroyed the terrible myth that the Society of Saint Pius X was schismatic and excommunicated. From what they say, it is clear that the Society and its followers are definitely not schismatic, nor excommunicated; that their priests are validly ordained priests; the sacraments they bestow are valid sacraments; and that anyone can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending a Society of Saint Pius X Mass.

This was recently shown to be the case in Hawaii, where Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate, on May 1, 1991, some followers of the Society of Saint Pius X, for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision "lacks foundation and hence validity." Bishop Ferrario's attempted excommunication of Society followers was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993. "From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, 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 1 May 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity." (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington D.C.)

Church's Experts Say

LATIN MASS IS OKAY

Society of Saint Pius X is not in

Schism nor Excommunicated

"They're not excommunicated as schismatics, as far as I can see, because the Vatican has never said they are ... I come to the conclusion that canonically speaking, he's not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law" (Fr. Gerald Murray, August, 1995).

"Of course the Mass and the Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid." (Cardinal Edward Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, May 3,1994).

"The answer given by eight of the [nine] cardinals in '86 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this, I was one of the cardinals. [Also] The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine [Latin] Mass." (Cardinal Stickler, May, 1995 in New York)

CARDINAL EDWARD CASSIDY:

The President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity wrote the following reply, on May 3, 1994, to an inquiry about the status of the Society of Saint Pius X.

"Dear Mr. X...Regarding your inquiry (March 25, 1994), I would point out at once that the Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of Saint Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society 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 Bishops are validly, but not lawfully, consecrated ... I hope that this answers your letter satisfactorily."

Yours sincerely in the Lord

Edward Cardinal Cassidy - President"

CARDINAL CASTILLO LARA:

President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, explained that, "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope's permission) is not in itself a schismatic act" and so no excommunication applies. (La Repubblica, October 7, 1988).

COUNT NERI CAPPONI, D.Cn.L., LL.D:

The retired Professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, well-known in Vatican legal circles and accredited to argue cases before Rome's highest juridical body, the Apostolic Signatura, explains that for a schismatic act, it is not enough to merely consecrate a bishop without papal permission. "He must do something more. For instance, had he set up a hierarchy of his own, then it would have been a schismatic act. The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre 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" and so he is not excommunicated. (Latin Mass Magazine, May-June 1993)

CARDINAL ALFONS STICKLER:

Former Prefect of the Vatican Archives and Library, served as an expert to four Vatican II commissions. Now living at the Vatican, he says: "Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine [Latin] Mass in the present day? The answer given by eight of the cardinals in '86 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this, I was one of the cardinals. There was another question, very interesting. 'Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?' The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official prohibition and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition... because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever." (Latin Mass Magazine, May 5, 1995)

PROFESSOR GERINGER:

Canon Lawyer at the University of Munich "With the Episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre was by no means creating a schism."

FR. GERALD E MURRAY:

Of the Archdiocese of New York, working for his Canon Law doctorate, received his license in Canon Law at Rome's famous Gregorian University, probably the Church's most prestigious institution of higher learning, in June, 1995, with a lengthy thesis entitled, "The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X: Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics?" In his interview with Latin Mass Magazine, he says: "I have received a license in canon law and I've studied this topic, the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, for my license thesis ... They're not excommunicated as schismatics, as far as I can see, because the Vatican has never said they are ... I come to the conclusion that, canonically speaking, he's not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. He's guilty of an act of disobedience to the Pope, but he did it in such a way that he could avail himself of a provision of the law that would prevent him from being automatically excommunicated (latae sententiae) for this act." Therefore, neither Archbishop Lefebvre, nor any of the bishops he consecrated, is excommunicated.

"In the case of the Society of Saint Pius X lay people or the priests, the Vatican never declared any priest or lay person to have become a schismatic." Therefore the priests and faithful are not excommunicated. "As far as I can see, the Holy See has never stated that mere attendance at a Mass said by a priest in the Society of Saint Pius X constitutes a schismatic act ... Let's say that you knew that the priest at your parish was teaching things contrary to the moral law or Catholic doctrine. Let's say he denied the existence of hell, or taught that divorced and remarried people could receive Communion. Could you go to a Society of Saint Pius X chapel to receive good doctrine? That seems better to me than hearing truly heretical sermons." (Latin Mass Magazine, Fall, 1995).

FR.PATRICK VALDINI:

Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris said that Archbishop Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic act by the consecrations, for he didn't deny the Pope's primacy. "It is not the consecration of a bishop which creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission." Which is something Archbishop Lefebvre never did (Question de Droit ou de confiance, L'Homme Nouveau, Feb.17, 1988).

Cardinal Ratzinger,

Cardinal Stickler,

Cardinal Lara,

Cardinal Cassidy,

Eminent Canon Lawyers,

in Rome & many more

say that the Society of Saint Pius X is neither in Schism, nor is it

Excommunicated ... and that anyone can fulfill their Sunday obligation by

attending the Society's Masses. [2]

II - Examining the Opening Paragraphs:

Archbishop Lefebvre : NOT GUILTY

What's it all about?

In November 1970, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre formally founded the Society of Saint Pius X, in order to train traditional priests and keep the traditions of the Church. The Society was officially blessed and approved by the Church. An American, Cardinal Wright, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, wrote, of the Society of Saint Pius X: "This Association has already exceeded the frontiers of Switzerland, and several ordinaries, in different parts of the world, praise and approve it. All of this, and especially the wisdom of the norms which direct and govern this Association, give much reason to hope for its success...the Society will certainly be able to conform to the end...for the distribution of the clergy in the world."

It is worth noting that the turbulent history of the Society and its operations - not to mention tenuous at times relationship between the Archbishop and Popes Paul VI and John Paul II - are not mentioned here. They are of critical importance in fully understanding the ramifications of the 1988 incident. However, the SSPX judging by the way they set up the sequence in the tract would appear to want to make the entire issue of schism hang on just the consecrations themselves. There are a myriad of other factors besides the consecrations themselves that must be weighed and considered for an accurate assessment of the Society's canonical standing in the Catholic Church.

Eighteen years later, in June of 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops in order to guarantee the continuation of a work blessed and approved by the Church. Rome had agreed in principle on the point of episcopal consecration, but did not agree on the Archbishop's choice of candidates. He, nevertheless, went ahead with the consecrations, despite Rome's disapproval.

It is interesting that the tract does not mention that the Society and the Holy See had been engaged in an on again-off again relationship since 1976. (When the Archbishop was suspended of his episcopal duties and refused obedience to the Holy See.) In every case of conflict, the Archbishop did whatever he wanted to and ignored what the Pope or his other superiors in Rome told him to do. This detail is a significant one in being able to properly assess the Society's canonical status not only after the events of 1988 but also in the period preceding the 4 consecrations. Besides, can any objective person state that hindsight has not validated the concerns of the Holy Father on the Archbishop's selection of candidates (especially with regards to Bishops Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and Richard Williamson)???

As a consequence...

CARDINAL GANTIN:

The Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, wrongly declared that Archbishop Lefebvre had performed a "schismatic act" by consecrating the four bishops in 1988 without papal permission and warned "the priests and the Faithful...not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur the very grave penalty of excommunication." Cardinal Gantin erroneously quoted the Church's Law (Canon 1364 s.1): "a schismatic act incurs automatic excommunication," but since there was no schism, there could be no excommunication.

POPE JOHN PAUL II:

On the following day, the Pope made a similar, but non-juridical statement: "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law (Canon 1364)." Yet, as his experts later proved: there was no schism in the first place, and so there could be no excommunication!

First of all, who is the Society and what authority do they possess to say that the Pope's statement was "non-juridical"??? Secondly, who are they to claim that Cardinal Gantin and the Pope are wrong on this issue simply because both of them disagree with the SSPX viz. the Society's standing in the Church??? Notice how right off the bat the SSPX is saying "since there was no schism there could be no excommunication." To their credit, they recognize that if it can be shown that the SSPX is in schism (that either the act committed by Archbishop Lefebvre was schismatic or lent itself to the formalization of a schism), then they are excommunicated under Canon Law.

Much scaremongery resulted from this, with many priests and bishops, not well versed in the laws of the Church, brandishing such outrageously false statements and threats as: It is a mortal sin to attend a Society of Saint Pius X Mass, or that anybody doing so, would find themselves automatically excommunicated and in schism, etc. Too many scaremongers have been speaking out on an issue they know very little about and many persons were frightened by their untruths and exaggerations.

It is not as if "scaremongery" has not resulted from those who govern the SSPX who are "not well versed in the laws of the Church" brandishing their own "outrageously false statements and threats". This writer has had access to a whole book full of such material and could have used that very damaging material for quite some time. However, the intention with this treatise has always been to focus on the major issues and avoid ancillary distractions. It suffices to say that with the ancillary issues as well as the major ones that the SSPX tends to find themselves "speaking out on issues they know very little about and many persons have been frightened and scandalized by their untruths."

However, experts in Church Law and several high-ranking cardinals are in agreement that Archbishop Lefebvre did not perform a schismatic act and, consequently, is neither excommunicated on the grounds of schism or on any other grounds. The label of "Schismatic & Excommunicated" cannot be applied to Archbishop Lefebvre, nor any of his followers, for it lacks foundation and validity, which is what the Church's experts have been saying since 1988--the year of Archbishop Lefebvre's four episcopal consecrations.

We shall see what these "experts" they bring to their defense really have to say on these matters.

In this article you will see just who has been saying what. We are grateful for the objective reasoning, clarity and lucidity of the Church's experts, who have finally destroyed the terrible myth that the Society of Saint Pius X was schismatic and excommunicated. From what they say, it is clear that the Society and its followers are definitely not schismatic, nor excommunicated; that their priests are validly ordained priests; the sacraments they bestow are valid sacraments; and that anyone can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending a Society of Saint Pius X Mass.

We will soon see how "clear" their case really is. Notice first of all the "straw man" the SSPX is erecting here: No one who questions the canonical status of the Society is questioning the validity of the ordinations of the priests of the Society. This is a pamphlet that is supposed to discuss the canonical status of the SSPX and they are citing sources claiming that the Tridentine Rite has not been suppressed but is legal and that their priests are validly ordained priests. Very interesting strategy to say the least (and irrelevant to their case for canonical legitimacy).

III - Analyzing the Hawaii 6 Incident and Cardinal Ratzinger's Decision:

This was recently shown to be the case in Hawaii, where Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate, on May 1, 1991, some followers of the Society of Saint Pius X, for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision "lacks foundation and hence validity." Bishop Ferrario's attempted excommunication of Society followers was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993. "From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, 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 1 May 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity." (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington D.C.)

Cardinal Ratzinger's decision in no way lends credence to the SSPX's assertions. (Nor did it have any bearing whatsoever on their canonical status.) The excommunication of "the Hawaii 6" was over a radio program that the attendees had set up which was anti Vatican II, and anti — Revised Missal (Pauline or Novus Ordo Mass), critical of the local ordinary, and other aspects. The exact parameters were not precisely known to this author when he originally wrote his treatise. In revising the work in December of 2000, the information was still somewhat fuzzy so it was again passed over. However, this writer has come across additional material that shines light on this subject - including an interesting statement from the St. Joseph's Foundation where they noted that they "assisted in defending the 'Hawaii Six'". Their spokesman stated that "I can say that the status of the Society was not at issue in that case. What was at issue was the conduct of the defendants which, while admittedly blameworthy in some respects, did not constitute schism".

That the SSPX uses this in the pamphlet without giving the details behind the reason for Bishop Ferrario's excommunications and the rationale behind Cardinal Ratzinger's overturning of the excommunications is something very unsettling right off the bat. It seems to indicate that the SSPX is not interested in displaying the facts as they really are but is interested in anything that might remotely support their position. So right off the bat we have them bearing false witness against Cardinal Ratzinger. Whether this was an offense worthy of blame or not will be determined as the rest of this pamphlet is looked at. However, first it needs to be noted that while the above example applied to the actions of six individuals, in the Diocese of Lincoln a few years later Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz specifically made a list of groups to whom involvement with "is always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith". The groups listed included (i) Planned Parenthood (ii) Hemlock Society (iii) Call to Action (iv) Freemasons (v) Eastern Star and (vi) Catholics for a Free Choice. Included on the list were also "The Society of Saint Pius X (Lefebvre Group)" and Saint Michael the Archangel Chapel (SSPX). After including the Society and other organizations affiliated with them on his list, Bishop Bruskewitz announced the following judgment:

Any Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln who attain or retain membership in any of the above listed organizations or groups after April 15, 1996, are by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) under interdict and are absolutely forbidden to receive Holy Communion. Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict on part of any such Catholics will by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) cause them to be excommunicated. Absolution from these ecclesial censures is "reserved to the Bishop. This notice, when published in the Southern Nebraska Register, is a formal canonical warning. [3]

This appears to be a red herring thrown in by the SSPX to distract from the focus of the topic: whether the Society is in schism or not. The licitness or illicitness of the Latin Mass has no bearing on the canonical status of the SSPX.
 

IV - Briefly Dealing With Other Quotes:

"They're not excommunicated as schismatics, as far as I can see, because the Vatican has never said they are ... I come to the conclusion that canonically speaking, he's not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law" (Fr. Gerald Murray, August, 1995).

This quote from Fr. Gerald Murray will be addressed later on.

"Of course the Mass and the Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid." (Cardinal Edward Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, May 3,1994).

This quote from Cardinal Cassidy will be addressed later on.

"The answer given by eight of the [nine] cardinals in '86 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this, I was one of the cardinals. [Also] The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine [Latin] Mass." (Cardinal Stickler, May, 1995 in New York)

Of course seeing these quotes in proper context would be helpful but it should be obvious right off the bat that the Society is treating the issue of their canonical status and the topic of the licitness of the Latin Mass as a "Siamese Twins" issue. Again, the licitness or illicitness of the Latin Mass has no bearing on the canonical status of the SSPX. That they are not making this distinction but instead appear to be deliberately blurring it seems to indicate that their position is not as strong as they would claim it is.

CARDINAL EDWARD CASSIDY:

The President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity wrote the following reply, on May 3, 1994, to an inquiry about the status of the Society of Saint Pius X.

"Dear Mr. X...Regarding your inquiry (March 25, 1994), I would point out at once that the Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of Saint Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society 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 Bishops are validly, but not lawfully, consecrated ... I hope that this answers your letter satisfactorily."

As it was not possible to track down the actual document being referenced above, the reader is asked to compare the SSPX's honesty in citing references in other areas where they can be verified when considering their honesty in citing Cardinal Cassidy above. Also, the reason the Directory of Ecumenism is not concerned with the issue is because the Society is not a Church properly so-constituted. This is a canonical distinction that the author is reasonably informed about but is not competent enough to express it in proper canonical terminology. All that the author will say on it at the current time is that this status is detrimental to the SSPX and not an asset or any classification that strengthens their position: a position that will now be subjected to meticulous scrutiny.

V - Addressing the Comments of Cardinal Castillo Lara:

CARDINAL CASTILLO LARA:

President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, explained that, "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope's permission) is not in itself a schismatic act" and so no excommunication applies. (La Repubblica, October 7, 1988).

First of all, the SSPX is making much hay of the statement that the act of consecration without permission is not in itself a schismatic act. But notice that they add the words "without the Pope's permission" in parenthesis in the middle of the Cardinal's statement as if they are helping us "interpret" what the Cardinal was saying. They then add the words "and so no excommunication applies" but they tack them onto the end of the quote before listing the source. This gives the impression that Cardinal Castillo Lara said those words when he clearly did not. True they did not put that addition to the passage in quotes but it is written in a way so that someone reading it will likely make the erroneous assumption that those added words were spoken by the Cardinal when they were not. This is being honest when quoting a source.

Now the SSPX is correct that Cardinal Castillo Lara is definitely an authority on Canon Law. In fact, on the day that Pope John Paul II promulgated the 1983 Code of Canon Law, he thanked many of the prominent members of the Church hierarchy who were involved in updating the 1917 Code among whom was the following:

To each and every one of them we express our deepest gratitude today…

With pleasure we also refer to the living: in the first place, to the present Pro-President of the Commission, our venerable brother Rosalio Castillo Lara, who has worked so outstandingly for so long in a role of such responsibility. Next, we refer to our beloved son, Monsignor William Onclin, who has contributed to the successful outcome of the task with assiduous and diligent care. Then there are others who played an inestimable part in this Commission, in developing and completing a task of such volume and complexity, whether as Cardinal members, or as officials, consultors and collaborators in the various study groups or in other roles. [4]

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...We next obtained a copy of the report in La Repubblica. We found that Cardinal Lara's statement to us was virtually word for word what he was reported as saying by La Repubblica... [5]

VI - Addressing the Comments of Count Neri Capponi:

COUNT NERI CAPPONI, D.Cn.L., LL.D:

The retired Professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, well-known in Vatican legal circles and accredited to argue cases before Rome's highest juridical body, the Apostolic Signatura, explains that for a schismatic act, it is not enough to merely consecrate a bishop without papal permission. "He must do something more. For instance, had he set up a hierarchy of his own, then it would have been a schismatic act. The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre 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" and so he is not excommunicated. (Latin Mass Magazine, May-June 1993)

They did it again with Count Capponi's quote. Look at the end of the quote where they try to give the impression that Count Capponi said that the Archbishop was not excommunicated when he did not say this at all. Also, note that Count Capponi said that "...this ACT was not, per se, schismatic". Cardinal Castillo Lara pointed out that Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated were both under two penalties - one for schism and one for excommunication. In doing so, he still recognized the principle that  Count Capponi is pointing out here: that "the act of consecrating bishops is not in itself a schismatic act". It appears that the Count here is discussing only the physical act itself of consecration of a bishop and it being a solitary act in and of itself as schismatic. Obviously this assertion is correct but that does not vindicate Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated. Also, there is a substantial part of that interview that the SSPX cuts out when quoting Count Capponi which is important for understanding with greater clearly his view on the matter. The relevant missing parts from the Roger McCaffrey interview with Count Neri Capponi (from the May-June 1993 issue of Latin Mass Magazine) are supplied here courtesy of William P. 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."

McCaffrey: "In America, (the interview took place in the Count's apartment overlooking the Arno River) some will accuse me of aiding and abetting the Lefebvrites because of your response to schism and attending Mass, and fulfilling one's obligation (the Count had said that if you have a three-ring circus at your church and an SSPX offered Mass was down the street, a Catholic would fulfill his obligation by attending Mass at a Society mission or chapel). In this there is no argument. But, it should be obvious that if one will experience a diminution of the faith because of a steady diet of Novus Ordo nonsense, then one may well also experience a diminution of the faith with respect to an ongoing association with the SSPX because of the content of its sermons, writings and publications. Therefore one must be continually on his guard when around the SSPX.

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." [6]

Turning to the quote above it is crystal clear that Count Neri Capponi did not voice a position of support for the SSPX in his article. (From the excerpts above anyway. This writer read the article in full some time back and also in late 1999 when he found it on the web. However, it no longer appears to be available in full on the web.) Of course this part of the interview was "conveniently" omitted by them when citing Count Capponi as an "ally" to their cause. It is also obvious after viewing the Count's comments with the context not supplied by the SSPX that they are also guilty of bearing false witness against Count Neri Capponi as they did with Cardinal Castillo Lara.

VII - Addressing the Comments of Cardinal Alfons Stickler and Professor Geringer:

CARDINAL ALFONS STICKLER:

Former Prefect of the Vatican Archives and Library, served as an expert to four Vatican II commissions. Now living at the Vatican, he says: "Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine [Latin] Mass in the present day? The answer given by eight of the cardinals in '86 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this, I was one of the cardinals. There was another question, very interesting. 'Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?' The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official prohibition and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition... because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever." (Latin Mass Magazine, May 5, 1995)

Is not it interesting that they have to now switch the subject to being about the licitness of the Tridentine Rite!!! Notice also their clever word switch in the above quote. The question was 'Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?’. This is an important distinction to make because the Society priests are not in good standing because they are not under the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary.

Indeed what the Society does not tell you in their snippet is that there is a missing ellipse and also a key word which they edit out. Here is Cardinal Stickler's statements from Latin Mass Magazine. The words quoted by the SSPX will be in nine point type in the next citation. The words "conveniently" edited out of their citation will be in twelve point type with points which directly refute their misrepresentation of His Eminence either bolded or underlined.
 

Did Pope Paul actually forbid the old rite?

Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine Mass in the present day? No. He asked Benelli explicitly, "Did Paul VI forbid the old mass?" He never answered - never yes, never no.

Why? He couldn't say "Yes he forbade it." He couldn't forbid a mass which was from the beginning valid and was the Mass of thousands of saints and faithful. The difficulty for him was he couldn't forbid it, but at the same time he wanted the new Mass to be said, to be accepted. And so he could only say, "I want that the new Mass should be said." This was the answer all the princes gave to the question asked. They said: the Holy Father wished that all follow the new Mass.

The answer given by eight of the cardinals in '86 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this, I was one of the cardinals. Only one was against. All the others were for the free permission: that everyone could choose the old Mass. That answer the Pope accepted, I think; but again when some bishops' conferences became aware of the danger of this permission, they came to the Pope and said, "This absolutely should not be allowed because it will be the occasion, even the cause, of controversy amongst the faithful." And informed of this argument, I think, the Pope abstained from signing this permission. Yet, as for the commission -I can report from my own experience- the answer of the great majority was positive.

There was another question, very interesting. 'Can any bishop forbid any priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again?' The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official prohibition and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition not because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever. Those words of Pius V were common for an important decision of the Pope. He always said, "This is valid forever." But this was not a theological, it was not a dogmatic statement, this decree of the Pope promulgating his Tridentine Mass order. And so it could be changed by his successors....

In Italian, they say that one pope gives the bull and another takes the bull again, that is, he can change the disposition of his predecessor...

So what about a bishop forbidding the Mass in the case of a priest or a whole dioceses? You must realize that a bishop is the only one who has responsibility for his dioceses....Bishops have no jurisdiction over their colleagues. A bishop in his dioceses, for his dioceses and his subjects, can find the arguments to forbid it. He can say, "This is disturbing to the peace in the dioceses."

It is necessary to notice that the privilege is given to the bishops, not the faithful. So a bishop can use the privilege or not. [7]

So it is clear when one reads more of the Cardinal's statements that he clearly states that (i) the words of Quo Primum do not indicate that the rite of mass could not be changed or even set aside (ii) the Cardinal makes it clear that the Cardinal consulted by Pope John Paul II were simply giving an opinion for His Holiness' consideration. Further still, (iii) despite this opinion, the pope did not ratify the permission that the Cardinals stated was possible in light of Pope Paul not intending to forbid the old mass. (In the sense of not wanting it to be said under any circumstances.) Cardinal Stickler substantiates this by noting that (iv) bishops are the only ones given this privilege by the pope (via the Indult) and therefore they can approve or disapprove of it as they see fit.

And finally, (v) as Cardinal Stickler noted that the bishop "is the only one who has responsibility for his dioceses" and thus "[a] bishop in his dioceses, for his dioceses and his subjects, can find the arguments to forbid [in his dioceses the Indult.] In short, Cardinal Stickler also is not an ally for the SSPX's cause or indeed the cause of anyone who supports priests celebrating the Tridentine mass in a diocese where either (i) the diocesan bishop does not allow it or (ii) with organizations which do not have the approval of the diocesan bishop. (Even if the diocesan bishop approves of the Indult in his dioceses.)
 

PROFESSOR GERINGER:

Canon Lawyer at the University of Munich "With the Episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre was by no means creating a schism."

No one is claiming that the episcopal consecrations themselves were the creation of the schism but instead that they formalized the already existing schism between the Society and the Church. So in that light, this quote proves nothing even if it is quoted without alteration or spin by the SSPX. But when quoted in context it proves something else entirely different:

"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."

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." [8]

VIII - Fr. Gerald E. Murray’s Revealing Letter:

FR. GERALD E MURRAY:

Of the Archdiocese of New York, working for his Canon Law doctorate, received his license in Canon Law at Rome's famous Gregorian University, probably the Church's most prestigious institution of higher learning, in June, 1995, with a lengthy thesis entitled, "The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X: Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics?" In his interview with Latin Mass Magazine, he says: "I have received a license in canon law and I've studied this topic, the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, for my license thesis ... They're not excommunicated as schismatics, as far as I can see, because the Vatican has never said they are ... I come to the conclusion that, canonically speaking, he's not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. He's guilty of an act of disobedience to the Pope, but he did it in such a way that he could avail himself of a provision of the law that would prevent him from being automatically excommunicated (latae sententiae) for this act." Therefore, neither Archbishop Lefebvre, nor any of the bishops he consecrated, is excommunicated.

"In the case of the Society of Saint Pius X lay people or the priests, the Vatican never declared any priest or lay person to have become a schismatic." Therefore the priests and faithful are not excommunicated. "As far as I can see, the Holy See has never stated that mere attendance at a Mass said by a priest in the Society of Saint Pius X constitutes a schismatic act ... Let's say that you knew that the priest at your parish was teaching things contrary to the moral law or Catholic doctrine. Let's say he denied the existence of hell, or taught that divorced and remarried people could receive Communion. Could you go to a Society of Saint Pius X chapel to receive good doctrine? That seems better to me than hearing truly heretical sermons." (Latin Mass Magazine, Fall, 1995).

They did it again!!! Look at the tacked on chunk right after the word "act" in the first line of this page. The line is stuck there between the finished quote and the start of the next quote giving the impression that Fr. Murray said those words when he did not. Also, look at the title of Fr. Murray's thesis: The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X: Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics? It deals with the canonical status of the lay faithful!!! This has NOTHING to do with the status of the Bishops of the Society. Look in the middle of the paragraph and notice how they added the words "Therefore the priests and faithful are not excommunicated". The Vatican may not have declared that individual priests or lay people are schismatics (though they could be as schism can be a personal act and is not strictly a corporate one), but that does not make it immediately okay to attend Society Masses and receive the sacraments from them as if nothing is wrong. Also, they are bringing up for their support the opinion of someone who was not even a canon lawyer and (even if he was one) taking his word over and against that of Pope John Paul II. The Supreme Pontiff is trumped by a canon law understudy according to the SSPX. But are they really being fair to Fr. Murray in the manner with which they are quoting him??? For that answer, Fr. Gerald E. Murray can defend what he said versus what the SSPX claims he said:

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.

But first some preliminary observations. You state that I have a doctorate in canon law (a J.C.D.). I do not have a J.C.D., and nowhere in my interview do I claim to have this degree. You made that up. You also assert that the Gregorian University, where I completed my license and where I am currently studying for a doctorate in canon law, "says that the Society of Saint Pius X is neither in schism, nor is it excommunicated... and that anyone can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending the Society's Masses." The Gregorian has not said anything of the sort. The contents and conclusions of my license thesis are my own, not the Gregorian's.

My license thesis was approved and graded solely by my moderator -- who, by the way, did not agree with my conclusions regarding the possible invalidity of the declaration of excommunication issued by the Holy See against Archbishop Lefebvre and the other bishops involved. It was incorrectly reported in The Latin Mass that I successfully defended my thesis, thereby implying a public defense by an academic board, but that is not the case. No such public defense before the canon law faculty is required for a license thesis at the Gregorian (but it is required for a doctoral thesis).

In any event, even supposing a public defense, it should be clear that my thesis is my work, and the Gregorian University as an institution is not the author of my conclusions.

Following the publication of my interview and excerpts from my thesis in The Latin Mass, I have rethought and changed some of my conclusions, and I stated those emendations in a letter to be published in the Summer 1996 issue of the same magazine. I enclose a copy of that letter for your interest.

Now as to the specific fabrications and deceptions in your pamphlet, I include below my actual words from the interview in The Latin Mass, and your falsified version:

1) You say that I said: "I have received a doctorate in canon law and I've studied this topic, the
excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, for my doctorate thesis."

I actually said: "I have received a license in canon law and I've studied this topic, the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, for my license thesis."

2) You say that I said: "They're not excommunicated as schismatics, because the Vatican has never said they are."

I actually said: "They're not excommunicated as schismatic as far as I can see, because the Vatican has never said that they are."

3) You say I said: "...You can...show that Lefebvre himself was not excommunicated and therefore no one else was."

I actually said: "Or you can attempt to show that indeed Lefebvre himself was not excommunicated and therefore no one else was."

4) You say I said: "The Holy See has never stated that mere attendance at a Mass said by a priest in the Society of Saint Pius X constitutes a schismatic act."

I actually said: "As far as I can see the Holy See has never stated that mere attendance at a Mass said by a priest in the Society of Saint Pius X constitutes a schismatic act."

5) You say I said: "Could you go to a Society of Saint Pius X chapel to receive good doctrine? That seems better to me than hearing truly heretical sermons, e.g., denying hell, or that divorced and remarried people could receive Communion."

What I actually said in response to a question from the interviewer ("You're not encouraging people to attend these Masses, but you're simply saying -- and by the way, Cardinal Ratzinger implied this, too, in a press interview -- that just attending that Mass doesn't mean they're schismatic." Ratzinger said he knew people who attend SSPX Masses 'in the conviction that they are still in full communion with the Pope.' He called for an 'attitude...of generosity towards these people, many of whom are anguished. 'So you're on the one hand not advocating that people attend these Masses, but, on the other you're saying that it is not a schismatic act, necessarily") was:

"Let's say that you knew that the priest at your parish was teaching things contrary to the moral law or Catholic doctrine. Let's say he denied the existence of Hell, or taught that divorced and remarried people could receive Communion, and you knew that he was being tolerated by your local bishop. Could you go to an SSPX chapel to receive good doctrine? That seems better to me than hearing truly heretical sermons. I may be wrong, but I think you have a more important right to be at peace in your Faith than to listen to heresy."

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 [9]

Before leaving the subject of Fr. Murray's letter, it is worth noting here that he rethought his conclusions. When this writer's friend F. John Loughnan inquired by email by sending Fr. Murray a letter about the SSPX's continual misuse of his statements, Fr. Murray wrote back stating "I am not happy about the continuing use of arguments which I revised in literature produced by the SSPX. Their claims are exaggerated, and they selectively quote me to give the impression I support their claims" (July 15, 1999). Hence, even the modified version of the SSPX's pamphlet does not meet with the approval of Fr. Murray.

IX - Looking at the Comments of Fr. Patrick Valdini:

FR. PATRICK VALDINI:

Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris said that Archbishop Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic act by the consecrations, for he didn't deny the Pope's primacy. "It is not the consecration of a bishop which creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission." Which is something Archbishop Lefebvre never did (Question de Droit ou de confiance, L'Homme Nouveau, Feb.17, 1988).

Yet again the SSPX pulls the same flim flam in tacking on their own interpretation at the end of the sentence and sandwiching it between the citation of the source and the end of the quote to make it look like Fr. Valdini supports the Society's contentions. They also preface Fr. Valdini's quote by saying that he said he "never denied the pope's primacy" which is of course nowhere stated in the quote they supplied. What is needed on their part is evidence of explicit quotes, not partial or ambiguous quotes which the SSPX then modifies or puts their spin on to corral the person being quoted as a supporter of their position. They did this to Fr. Murray and he was justifiably outraged. Fr. Valdini's quote is a benign one actually. If you remove the SSPX revisions, it actually appears to weigh against the Society's position. Even if it supports the Society though (and the consecrations in and of themselves were not schismatic), that still overlooks the other aspects that affect a proper interpretation of the SSPX's standing.

No one claims that the consecrations themselves were schismatic. The schismatic act consisted in the disobedience to the Sovereign Pontiff in performing the consecrations against his explicit order not to. Now the SSPX is trying to argue that consecrating a bishop is not a schismatic act. Well of course it is not, this is a classic example of context-switching. Fr. Valdini's quote is neutral at best but the Society by adding onto the end of his quote (which they have done 3 times now by the way) makes it highly likely that Fr. Valdini's view on the matter would be in line with what Cardinal Castillo Lara, Count Neri Capponi, and Professor Geringer on the matter. Also notice that Fr. Valdini says "[w]hat makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission". This seems to imply that Fr. Valdini is saying that the Society is in schism because otherwise the wording does not make sense.

The SSPX from there tacks on a statement claiming that the Archbishop never sought to establish an apostolic mission and expects that to suffice for evidence for their position. The opinion of the SSPX cannot be constituted as evidence in their favour: that is circular reasoning par excellence. This quote fails to support their position in any way whatsoever. Besides, re-read what Cardinal Castillo Lara and Count Neri Capponi said on the matter. Cardinal Castillo Lara explicitly indicated that Archbishop Lefebvre in the committing of this action was giving his bishops an apostolic mission. Count Capponi agreed with Roger McCaffrey of Latin Mass Magazine that (the 1988 incident aside for the moment) the actions of the three consecrated (but excommunicated) Society Bishops in Campos, Brazil in 1991 was a violation of jurisdiction and therefore was a schismatic act. Besides, there is another interesting conundrum that the Society finds itself in and it is this: If the bishops of the SSPX do not have jurisdiction (which is what the SSPX claims) and they also do not have an apostolic mission (which they further claim) then they have no authority to do anything whatsoever!!!  But the bishops of the Society perform confirmations and other priestly functions. Therefore, are they claiming an apostolic mission or are they claiming jurisdiction??? They cannot have it both ways. Either position is incriminating to their status in the Church (since the Roman Pontiff has denied them faculties for either one) so they deny both. Oh what tangled webs they weave…

X - In Summary:

Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Stickler, Cardinal Lara, Cardinal Cassidy, Eminent Canon Lawyers,in Rome & many more say that the Society of Saint Pius X is neither in Schism, nor is it Excommunicated ... and that anyone can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending the Society's Masses.

(i) Cardinal Ratzinger was not addressing the canonical status of the Society in the Hawaii 6 case so citing him as evidence in support of the organization’s status in the Church is blatantly misleading.

(ii) Cardinal Stickler does not address the canonical status of the SSPX in his Latin Mass interview. However, any honest reading of the interview will point out that the SSPX again sought to manipulate the position of a high-ranking prelate. And as what Cardinal Stickler notes in that interview is damaging to the SSPX and other radical so-called "traditionalists" on the subject of the "right" to celebrate the Tridentine liturgy apart from the concurrence of the diocesan bishops, a brief schema of his comments in this summary section will be made so that there is no doubt as to His Eminence's stand on these subjects.

The Cardinal's quote addressed the licitness of the Tridentine Rite which is a non sequitur to their cause. Besides, taking into account the jurisdiction portion of Cardinal Stickler's quote (which the SSPX edits when paraphrasing his comments), Cardinal Stickler actually condemns the SSPX for celebrating the Tridentine Rite since he mentioned in his quote the necessity of a priest being "in good standing" to do so which no Society priest nor any so-called "independent priest" is. (A point that His Eminence made further down in the interview when he spoke of the right of the local ordinary to forbid the celebration of the Tridentine liturgy in his dioceses: another "convenient" omission by the SSPX in their blatant misrepresentation of the statements of His Eminence.

The Cardinal further stipulated that the position of the nine cardinals was one that depended on receiving the pope's permission - and further still, that the pope "did not sign the permission" to allow any priest in good standing to celebrate the Tridentine Rite. His Eminence also noted that the position of Quo Primum was not a factor in the mass' lack of suppression - a point the SSPX deceptively covered over by editing the word "not" out of the text and replacing it with an ellipse. And of course the part where His Eminence spoke of the required permission for all priests to celebrate the Tridentine mass and the pope's non ratification of this permission was excised from the text without an ellipse in the SSPX's pamphlet. In short, on every point Cardinal Stickler confutes the statements of the SSPX so he cannot honestly be listed as an ally of theirs.

(iii) Professor Geringer merely said that the consecrations themselves did not create a schism. The SSPX is again hoping that everyone focuses on the act as the creation of the schism instead of the view that the Society was already in schism. The latter view is one of recognizing that the Society (by its actions) was already in implicit schism before the consecrations of 1988. The act of consecration then was not in and of itself creating the schism. Instead the act was merely one of moving the schism which had previously (since 1976) been implicit and cementing it explicitly in the consecration of the 4 bishops in 1988 without a papal mandate. In short, the illicit (meaning illegal and sinful) consecrations themselves were a movement from a state of "material schism" to fully formalized schism; they were not in and of themselves the creation of the schism. Professor Geringer as noted above made the same analysis when he declared that "through the consecration of the four bishops by Lefebvre the schism had become definitive".

(iv) Cardinal Castillo Lara - who was heavily involved in the revision of the 1917 Code of Canon Law and acknowledged for his expertise in canon law by Pope John Paul II himself - explicitly says (in his letter to John Beaumont) that the SSPX was under two canonical penalties: one for schism and one for excommunication.

(v) Count Neri Capponi explicitly agreed with Roger McCaffrey of Latin Mass Magazine about the status of the SSPX. Mr. McCaffrey stated (in the portion of the latter’s interview of the Count with Latin Mass Magazine which the SSPX "conveniently" edited out of their citation) that the consecration of a bishop for Campos, Brazil was a violation of jurisdiction and was thus an act of schism. Remember, the issue is if the Society is in schism now so even if they were not in 1988, it is their status today which is in question here.

For even if Count Capponi did not think the Society was in schism by the actions of 1988, it cannot be argued that the 1991 consecration of a Society bishop in Campos, Brazil was an action that explicitly claimed either jurisdiction or was an explicit establishment of an apostolic mission by the SSPX in Brazil. This action without a papal mandate, was a schismatic act because it was a defacto claiming of jurisdiction by the SSPX. (As Mr. McCaffrey mentioned and to which the Count agreed. Of course the Society "conveniently" left out that part of the interview in their pamphlet.) So try as they might, the SSPX cannot railroad Count Neri Capponi into supporting their position despite their attempts to mischaracterize him in this manner.

(vi) Cardinal Cassidy is the President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity and stated specifically that his directory is not concerned with the SSPX. There is no evidence of Cardinal Cassidy being qualified to judge in matters of canon law anyway so his view is questionable. Besides, even if he is correct, he is the one voice on this list that claims that the Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. Canon Law says differently and this will be addressed in the next section.

(vii) Fr. Murray (whom they cited as a credible source) claims that they lied about his position and status initially (they did correct these sections though it seems). However, he also claims to have made many critical claims against the SSPX in that article that they ignored (or course). Fr. Murray further indicated that he had changed his mind on many of these issues. It is crystal clear that the SSPX is not reporting on both sides of the issue. How strange since so many "experts" according to them support their contentions.

(viii) Fr. Valdini (whom they cite as a credible source) makes a very ambiguous statement. From this the SSPX seeks to alter his quote by adding to the front of it (to "explain" what he "meant" to say presumably). Then they added at the end apparently to make him appear to agree with them on the issue. Remove the Society revisions and the quote does not in any way "prove" that the Society is not in schism nor does it support their contentions in any way. In fact, it appears rather to condemn the SSPX based on the wording of the quote itself. Either way though, it is most assuredly not evidence that supports the Society’s contentions.

It should be quite obvious in light of everything presented here that Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Castillo Lara, Count Neri Capponi, Cardinal Stickler, Professor Geringer, Fr. Gerald Murray, and Fr. Patrick Valdini  - all of whom are cited as "expert supporters" of the SSPX - actually either condemn the Society outright or they make comments that are non sequiturs viz. the SSPX's canonical standing. Only Cardinal Cassidy - the one example from the list who has no claim whatsoever to being a canonist - appears to have stated otherwise and the context of his statements could not be verified. Because their track record on all other points is so woeful, this writer will presume that Cardinal Cassidy if read in proper context would concur with the others on this list and declare it an 8-0 shutout contra the SSPX. If this is the best that they can do in proving their case then they have no case.

In the next section, the focus will be on the Church's position and showing that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is to be trusted and not individuals exercising their own private judgment on doctrinal/moral/ecclesiastical matters.

Bibliography:

[1] Genesis 3:1, 4-5

[3] Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz: Formal Canonical Warning of Excommunication (March 22, 1996)

[4] Pope John Paul II: Apostolic Constitution "Sacrae Disciplinae Leges" (January 25, 1983)

[5] Cardinal Castillo Lara: Letter to John Beaumont, (May 26th, 1993). Quoted in the Fidelity Magazine Article "The Story of the Vanishing Schism: The Strange Case of Cardinal Lara" by John Beaumont and John Walsh (March 1994)

[6] Roger McCaffrey: Interview with Count Neri Capponi from "Latin Mass Magazine" (May-June 1993)

[7] Cardinal Alphons Maria Stickler: Interview with "Latin Mass Magazine" on the Tridentine Mass (Summer 1995 Issue)

[8] Professor Geringer: Letter to John Beaumont (August 17th, 1993)

[9] Fr. Gerald E. Murray: Letter to Fr. Scott of the SSPX (June 14, 1996)

Additional Notes:

The biblical citation was originally taken from an online Douay-Rheims Bible no longer available on the Internet. However, the Douay Rheims Bible located at the following site is similar in many ways to the one originally used:
http://www.scriptours.com/bible/

The citation from Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz' "Extra Synodal Legislation" was obtained at the following link:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/BRUSKWTZ.HTM

The citation from the Apostolic Constitution "Sacrae Disciplinae Leges" where Pope John Paul II promulgated the 1983 Code of Canon Law was obtained at the following link:  http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/promulgate.htm

The citations from Cardinal Castillo Lara and Professor Geringer can be found in the article from Fidelity Magazine can be viewed here: http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/vanishingschism.htm

The portion of the Latin Mass interview with Count Neri Capponi (which the SSPX selectively edited for their pamphlet) can be found here: http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/section5.htm#schismaticssquirming

The citation from Cardinal Alphons Maria Stickler S.D.B. was obtained from the summer 1995 issue of "The Latin Mass."

The citations from Professor Geringer were obtained at the following link:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/jloughnan/ratzprl.htm

Fr. Gerald E. Murray's letter in its entirety was obtained at the following link: http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/section10.htm#caughtinthelie

Addendum:

This writer is unaware of any group using the 'traditionalist' label being in communion with the Holy Father except the Fraternity Society of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King, the Society of St. John, the St. Athanasius Society, and (as of January 18, 2002) the Priestly Association of St. John Mary Vianney in Campos. (Under Bishop Rangel.) That does not mean these are the only ones mind you but as a general rule most groups who claim to be affiliated with Rome are lying and they cannot be taken simply at their word.
 

©2003, 2000, "A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'" (Part 8), written by I. Shawn McElhinney. This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.