'Traditionalism' and its Status Under Canon Law

You wrote also, that I should forward to [Pope] Cornelius, our colleague, a copy of your letter, so that he might put aside any anxiety and know immediately that you are in communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church. [1]

In the last url, we looked at the attempts common to self-styled 'traditionalist' groups to justify their claims of good standing in the Church. (In the case of the SSPX, it was the claims that they are neither in schism nor excommunicated.) The "evidence" presented of course was sorely lacking and many times was selectively presented or modified in a dishonest manner to buttress their contentions. However, since anyone can be a critic, what will be offered in this section is a positive and affirmative position since logic and consistency demand this from anyone who is critical of a position or philosophy. The position to be proven here is a simple one: The Society of St. Pius X is in schism and its leaders have been excommunicated. Also, any group not recognized by Rome as in communion with her is illegitimate and in the same canonical quagmire as the SSPX is. (With the same danger to souls being prevalent.)

I - Catholic Encyclopedia on Schism:

The Catholic Encyclopedia has the following to say on the topic of schism. As its words apply to the groups that claim to be "restoring tradition" who are separated from the Apostolic See, the citation from the Encyclopedia speaks for itself:

Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i. e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act. In this etymological and full meaning the term occurs in the books of the New Testament. By this name St. Paul characterizes and condemns the parties formed in the community of Corinth (I Cor., i, 12): "I beseech you, brethren", he writes, ". . . that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment" (ibid., i, 10). The union of the faithful, he says elsewhere, should manifest itself in mutual understanding and convergent action similar to the harmonious co-operation of our members which God hath tempered "that there might be no schism in the body" (I Cor., xii, 25). Thus understood, schism is a genus which embraces two distinct species: heretical or mixed schism and schism pure and simple. The first has its source in heresy or joined with it, the second, which most theologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error, directly opposed to a definite dogma. This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. "Between heresy and schism", explains St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St. Augustine: "By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe" (De fide et symbolo, ix).  But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.

Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command. On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinct sect, much less the creation of such a group. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy.

[I]t may be of interest to quote the appreciation of Bayle, a writer above suspicion of partiality and a tolerant judge: "I know not," he writes, "a more grievous crime than that of tearing the mystical body of Jesus Christ, His church which He purchased with His own blood, that mother which bore us to God, who nourishes us with the milk of understanding, who leads us to eternal life" (Supplement to Philosophical Comment, preface).

Various motives have been brought forward in justification of Schism:

(1) Some have claimed the introduction into the Church of abuses, dogmatic and liturgical novelties, superstitions, with which they are permitted, even bound, not to ally themselves. Without entering into the foundation for these charges it should be noted that the authors cited above do not mention or admit a single exception. If we accept their statements separation from the Church is necessarily an evil, an injurious and blameworthy act, and abandoning of the true way of salvation, and this independent of all contingent circumstances. Moreover the doctrines of the Fathers exclude a priori any such attempt at justification; to use their words, it is forbidden for individuals or particular or national Churches to constitute themselves judges of the universal Church; the mere fact of having it against one carries its own condemnation. St. Augustine summed up all his controversy with the Donatists in the maxim: "The whole world unhesitatingly declares them wrong who separate themselves from the whole world in whatsoever portion of the whole world" (quapropter securus judicat orbis terrarum bonos non esse qui se dividunt ab orbe terrarum, in quacumque parte orbis terrarum) . Here Bayle may be quoted again: "Protestants bring forward only questionable reasons; they offer nothing convincing, no demonstration: they prove and object, but there are replies to their proofs and objections; they answer and are answered endlessly; is it worth while to make a schism?" (Dict. crit., art. Nihusius). [2]

This same argument could be addressed to the self-styled 'traditionalists' by noting that they "bring forward only questionable reasons; they offer nothing convincing, no demonstration: they prove and object, but there are replies to their proofs and objections; they answer and are answered endlessly". And the same question could be advanced: "is it worth while to make a schism???"

II - Are the SSPX (and Other Similar Groups) Schismatics???:

For quite some time this author was admittedly rather ambivalent about being completely honest in addressing the above question. It is not difficult to become confused when groups such as the SSPX are tossing out the names of top canon lawyers quoted (in some manner) to support their position and eloquent and savvy rhetoricians like Mr. Michael Davies making defenses for the Society along the lines of this excerpt from the SSPX magazine The Angelus from late 1990:

If such a consecration [the 1988 consecrations] is an intrinsically schismatic act it would always have involved the penalty of excommunication. In the 1917 Code of Canon Law the offense was punished only by suspension (see Canon 2370 of the 1917 Code). Pope Pius XII had raised the penalty to excommunication as a response to the establishment of a schismatic Church in China. The consecration of these illicit Chinese bishops differed radically from the consecrations carried out by Mgr. Lefebvre as the professed intention was to repudiate the authority of the Pope, that is, to deny that he has the right to govern the Church, and the illicitly consecrated Chinese bishops were given a mandate to exercise an apostolic mission. Neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor any of the bishops he has consecrated claim that they have powers of jurisdiction. They have been consecrated solely for the purpose of ensuring the survival of the Society by carrying out ordinations and also to perform confirmations. I do not wish to minimize in any way the gravity of the step taken by Mgr. Lefebvre. The consecration of bishops without a papal mandate is far more serious matter than the ordination of priests as it involves a refusal in practice of the primacy or jurisdiction belonging by divine right to the Roman Pontiff. But the Archbishop could argue that the crisis afflicting the Church could not be more grave and that grave measures were needed in response. [3]
The reader needs to ask themselves why the Archbishop could use the "crisis" defense while the Jansenists, Protestants, Donatists, Montanists, and every other heresy in the history of the Church could not use the same excuse. Many dissidents throughout history have used the excuse of the Church being "corrupted" to justify their rebellion. "Corruption" had to exist because otherwise how could the schismatic or the heretic justify their rebellion??? In every instance of record the Archbishop and his followers would undoubtedly say something to the tune of "yes but they were all wrong, we are right because this is a genuine crisis" or something along those lines. Every generation which has ever lived has thought that their situation was the "worst" because after all, it is the one they personally are living in. Are the times today in "crisis"??? To some extent yes this is a fair assessment. Being in "crisis" never justifies going against God's Divinely authorized authority which resides in the Magisterium of the Church. That is exactly what it is: a rebellion against the order established by God. Please see Numbers 16 for God’s view of those who rebel against His established order. Then ask yourself why God should consider today's self-styled 'traditionalists' in any better light then He considered Korah, Dathan, and Abiron.

Mr. Davies cited Pope Pius XII and the incident in China from the 1950's and sought to explain some sort of difference between the two. There is no difference because a bishop can only have authority if he has either a.) Jurisdiction or b.) If he is establishing an apostolic mission. There is no middle ground and for both of these states the consent of the Roman Pontiff is required in order to maintain communion with the Church. As Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical addressing the Chinese bishop incident:

40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity."

41. Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious.

42. To such conduct the warning words of the Divine Teacher fittingly apply: "He who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, is a thief and a robber."[John 10:1] The sheep indeed know the true shepherd's voice. "But a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."[John 10:4-5]

43. We are aware that those who thus belittle obedience in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have unrighteously assumed, defend their position by recalling a usage which prevailed in ages past. Yet everyone sees that all ecclesiastical discipline is overthrown if it is in any way lawful for one to restore arrangements which are no longer valid because the supreme authority of the Church long ago decreed otherwise. In no sense do they excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying...

47. From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.

48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred. [4]

Since Mr. Davies has claimed that the Society denies any claim to jurisdiction, this means that by implication they must be establishing an apostolic mission. There is no other alternative and either one is incriminating to the Society's position viz. their standing with the Church and thus with God.

What we have here ironically is a man who is a zealous defender of the Old Roman Rite of the Mass and of the pre-Vatican II Church protocols. Undoubtedly he longs for the nostalgia of when things were more "black and white" which is certainly in some ways understandable. Interestingly enough, on an issue that is as black and white as you can get (the question of schism), Mr. Davies now claims to see shades of grey. The questions must be asked of course as to (i) the authority of Mr. Davies to tell us what is and is not either schism or (ii) what constitutes a schismatic act. Mr. Davies seems to think that one can commit evil (schism) so that good can come out of it. Such a principle is from the school that says "the end justifies the means" which is a philosophy that Catholicism constantly rejects as a moral barometer. Mr. Davies knows this and if not then he should because it is the basis for the Church's teaching on a whole host of moral issues like birth control and mercy killing to name two such examples.

Mr. Davies would probably use this argument to support the teaching of the Magisterium in these two instances of course. The problem is that he subsequently is inconsistent in applying it to the case of the Archbishop who repudiated the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff in consecrating bishops for his Society. This is indicative of a serious misunderstanding by Mr. Davies of the consistency that simple logic would demand that he apply across the board in these matters. Perhaps it is not misunderstanding though but personal interests that drives Mr. Davies to engage in the canon law gymnastics that he does to try and argue as to the SSPX's legitimacy. After all, the SSPX is one of the outlets (via their in-house publisher the Angelus Press) that stocks and promotes his books. It is impossible to be involved in 'traditionalism' to any degree and not hear of Michael Davies or read some of his material. He comes across in his books as a reasonably intelligent fellow and he is unquestionably a good writer capable of drawing his audience in and holding their attention. The problem with this is that those who read Mr. Davies’ work do not realize that he is to some extent a polemicist who in many places is not telling the whole truth. He also commits a number of factual and dogmatic errors, which is a serious matter since the audience he seeks to reach is not capable most of the time of detecting these snares. This author sees Mr. Davies as a man who has a stake in promoting canonically untenable arguments. There appears in other words to be a case of personal self-interest here (not wanting to bite the hand that feeds him) rather then seeking to find and defend the truth regardless of the personal inconveniences such a venture entails.

To answer his question, there is a very good reason why the penalty for consecration without an explicit papal mandate was not automatically an excommunicable offense in previous times: the difficulty in communication. In previous times before the modern age, letters and other correspondence did not travel very quickly. And at times for reasons where there was no intention of controverting the will of the Popes, for sufficiently grave reasons prelates would be consecrated before the mandate arrived to do so from the Apostolic See or from its delegate. This is nowhere near the same thing as the deliberate repudiation of an explicit command of the Apostolic See on a matter as grave as imparting episcopal consecration - and thereby perpetuating apostolic succession - in a direct attack on the unity of the Church.

In modern times, the increase in speedy communication removed the lacunas that previously existed; thereby mandates could travel quickly via telephone or telegraph devices. And while there could be a tacit presumption of papal acceptance in former times, this could never be legitimately maintained over and against an explicit denunciation by the Roman Pontiff. So there are two points to cover on this point and they are (i) the modern ease of communication removing the problems of past times and (ii) Pope Pius XII's proper understanding of this issue. With regards to the first point, it should be self-evident. The first telegraph was not invented until 1844 and the first cables connecting Italy with other countries in Europe were not in place until 1852. TransAtlantic cables between North America and Europe was not in place until 1858 - and they quickly broke down and the engineering and scientific difficulties were not solved until 1863. (The cable was redesigned and an attempt to relay it failed in 1865 when it broke. A new attempt was made in early 1866 and by September 1866 it was finally operational.)

The first telephone was not invented until 1876 and between the TransAtlantic Cable finally becoming fully operational (1866) and the invention of the telephone (1876), the First Vatican Council was convened (1869). One of the intentions of the Council was to systemize the myriad codices of law which had developed unsystematically for centuries. The Council never got around to this issue and it was resumed by Pope St. Pius X under whose pontificate (1903-1914) the codification was to take place. Cardinal Pietro Gasparri - considered by many to have been the finest legal mind of his time - was the primary compiler and systemizer of this compendium. Where are we going with all of this information??? Well, Pope Pius XII as a young priest "was also trained in canon law and worked with Gasparri in its codification" (Sir Nicholas Cheetham: History of the Popes pg. 285). The biography Angelic Shepherd from 1950 noted that "the new codex of canon law...bears clear evidence of [Fr. Pacelli's] thorough study" (pg. 30) and that "profound juridical knowledge, acute judgment, and clarity of expression were required to bring into a coordinated and modernized system the many laws promulgated by the Church over a period of centuries which now lay scattered in numerous edicts and bulls" (pg. 31). The book noted also that "Monsignor Pacelli contributed substantially to this important work, and his skill and precision so pleased his rather exacting patron [Gasparri], that in 1912, he was made Secretary of the Commission of Editors" (pg. 31).

In short, if anyone would be in a position to understand the Code and the intentions of its compilers in the 1950's, it was Pope Pius XII not only because of his prerogative as Supreme Pontiff but because he was one of those who as a young priest assisted in its compilation. To tie these two elements together (telecommunication and Pius XII's competency on this issue), it is important to know the status of telecommunications within the Vatican around the time of the codification of the 1917 compendium. According to the Vatican's own website on Vatican communications:

Vatican telecommunications started in 1886, at the beginnings of telephony, thanks to Giovanni Battista Marzi who invented the world's first automatic telephone exchange which linked 10 separate phones. A few decades later Guglielmo Marconi effected the first Italian link via radio connecting the Holy See and the Papal Residence at Castel Gandolfo.  Regular telephone services within the Vatican State began after the stipulation of the Lateran Treaty (Patti Lateranensi) with the installation of a number of telephones in various Vatican offices and residences linked via the Roman urban telephone network. The first central telephone exchange, donated by the American Catholics in 1930, was installed in the Belvedere building and provided telephone services for approximately 360 end users; it remained in use until 1960 when it was replaced by a Pentaconta exchange with a capacity of 1,500 numbers later extended to 3,000. [5]
Stop and think about all of this information for a moment. If regular telephone services within the Vatican did not start until after 1929 (when the Lateran Treaty - another Gasparri/Pacelli collaboration) was effected - not to mention the first transatlantic telegraph having taking place in 1901, the reader needs to ask themselves how the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 could have possibly accounted for the factor of increased modern communication in the equation. This is the assertion made by implication when one asserts that the Code would have to have outlined the principle set forward by Pope Pius XII in 1958 about episcopal consecration without papal approbation being "gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious" (Ad Apostolorum Principis §41). For to assert that the Code of Canon Law in 1917 would have referred to consecration of a bishop without papal mandate as intrinsically evil in an age when the Vatican did not have ready communication with the world's episcopates is an example (in the case of Mr. Davies) of someone who has not thought carefully about the myriad of factors in this equation.

Also, we are not speaking here of any kind of explicit or tacit approval but of the actions of those who deliberately contradict the manifested mind of the Roman Pontiff. In earlier days a pope may well have disapproved of a certain consecration which was nonetheless carried out in the interim of the time it took for notification to leave Rome and arrive in distant lands where such actions took place. In such examples, an appeal to a "state of emergency" would indeed have been a valid excuse in some cases where the manifested mind of the legislator was not known with certainty. This cannot in any sense apply to someone who knows the manifested mind of the legislator and proceeds to disobey the will of the legislator.

Logic dictates that if the one whom communion is to be maintained explicitly proclaims that a certain action would be understood as a breach of communion that the action in question would be intrinsically schismatic. If this principle is not accepted then the Church would have no ability whatsoever to expel anyone from her communion. And further, since every heretic or schismatic in history (judged as so by the Church) maintained that they were "not a heretic" or "not a schismatic" but instead that it was the Church who was at fault, those who make similar claims today with regards to the ecclesial groups they affiliate with should pause and reflect upon the historical company they are keeping. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (of which no self-styled 'traditionalist' could possibly reject) says this about the Sovereign Pontiff and his relationship to the Code of Canon Law, etc.

[T]o attain its sublime end, the Church, endowed by its Founder with legislative power, makes laws in conformity with natural and Divine law. The sources or authors of this positive ecclesiastical law are essentially the episcopate and its head, the pope, the successors of the Apostolic College and its divinely appointed head, Saint Peter. They are, properly speaking, the active sources of canon law. Their activity is exercised in its most solemn form by the ecumenical councils, where the episcopate united with its head, and convoked and presided over by him, with him defines its teaching and makes the laws that bind the whole Church. The canons of the Ecumenical councils, especially those of Trent, hold an exceptional place in ecclesiastical law. But, without infringing on the ordinary power of the bishops, the pope, as head of the episcopate, possesses in himself the same powers as the episcopate united with him. It is true that the disciplinary and legislative power of the popes has not always, in the course of centuries, been exercised in the same manner and to the same extent, but in proportion as the administration became centralized, their direct intervention in legislation became more and more marked; and so the sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of canon law; he can abrogate the laws made by his predecessors or by Ecumenical councils; he can legislate for the whole church or for a part thereof, a country or a given body of individuals; if he is morally bound to  take advice and to follow the dictates of prudence, he is not legally obliged to obtain the consent of any other person or persons, or to observe any particular form; his power is limited only by Divine law, natural and positive, dogmatic and moral. Furthermore, he is, so to say, the living law, for he is considered as having all law in the treasury of his heart ("in scrinio pectoris"; Boniface VIII. c. i, "De Constit." in VI). From the earliest ages the letters of the Roman pontiffs constitute, with the canons of the councils, the principal element of canon law, not only of the Roman Church and its immediate dependencies. but of all Christendom; they are everywhere relied upon and collected, and the ancient canonical compilations contain a large number of these precious "decretals" (decreta, statuta, epistolae decretales, and epistolae synodicae). Later, the pontifical laws are promulgated more usually as constitutions, Apostolic Letters, the latter being classified as Bulls or Briefs, according to their external form, or even a spontaneous acts, "Motu proprio". Moreover, the legislative and disciplinary power of the pope not being an in communicable privilege, the laws and regulations made in his name and with his approbation possess his authority: in fact, though most of the regulations made by the Congregations of the cardinals and other organs of the Curia are incorporated in the Apostolic Letters, yet the custom exists and is becoming more general for legislation to be made by mere decrees of the Congregations, with the papal approval. These are the "Acts of the Holy See" (Acta Sancte Sedis), and their object or purpose permitting, are real laws...[6]
The Encyclopedia clearly indicates that the Pope is the "source" of Canon Law. If "his power is only limited by Divine Law, Natural and Positive, Dogmatic and Moral" then logically this would extend to his authentic interpretation of the Code of Canon Law.

III - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the ‘Econe 4’: in Schism and Excommunicated???:

Pope John Paul II registered a ruling on this matter in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei Adflicta and the relevant parts read as follows:

Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II given on July 2, 1988.
[T]his act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience—which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy—constitutes a schismatic act.{Cf. Code of Canon Law, Canon 751} In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. {Cf. ibid., Canon 1382.}
The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers, who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth."{Vatican Council II, "Dei Verbum," 8; cf. Vatican Council I, "Dei Filius," Ch. 4; DS 3020.}

But especially contradictory is a notion of tradition which opposes the universal magisterium of the church possessed by the bishop of Rome and the body of bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his church.{Cf. Mt. 16:18; Lk, 10:16; "Pastor Aeternus," Ch. 3; DS 3060}…

Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law. {Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1364.}… [7]
The listed canon provisions are 751, 1382, and 1364. They will be dealt with in order along with any additional canons applicable to the situation under discussion:
Can. 751: Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him. [8]
Canon 1382 falls under the section of the Code titled "Usurpation of Ecclesiastical Offices and Offenses Committed in their Exercise" (Book VI):
Can. 1382: Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a
Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae
excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. [9]

Canon 1364 falls under the section of the Code titled "Offenses Against Religion and the Unity of the Church":

Can. 1364: §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententia excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3. [10]
Canon 194 falls under the section of the Code titled "Loss of Ecclesiastical Office" (Book I):
Can. 194: §1 The following are removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself:

1° one who has lost the clerical state;

2° one who has publicly defected from the catholic faith or from communion with the Church;

3° a cleric who has attempted marriage, even a civil one.

§2 The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be insisted upon only if it is established by a declaration of the competent authority. [11]

Of course the question about whether or not the pope would qualify as a "competent authority" or not will be dealt with after we finish detailing the applicable Code sections. Canon 1336 deals with additional expiatory penalties that could be levied against the offender "either forever or for a determinate or an indeterminate period" in addition to those which are established in the law. Rather then get too far off course, it seems a few points need to be dealt with here since Pope John Paul II did pass judgment in his Apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. At this time reviewing what the Code says about the authority of the Roman Pontiff is in order. Under the section titled "The Supreme Authority of the Church" (Book II of the Code), one of the first canons noted is one that states that the Pope has full power over the universal church:
Can. 333: §1 By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.

§2 The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the whole Church. He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner.

§3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff. [12]

Under Book VII of the Code (on "Trials in General") the Code notes that "[t]he Church has its own and exclusive right to judge (i) cases which refer to matters which are spiritual or linked with the spiritual and (ii) the violation of ecclesiastical laws and whatever contains an element of sin, to determine guilt and impose ecclesiastical penalties" (Can. 1401). The authority of the Roman Pontiff in this sphere is made clear by Canons 1404-1406:

Can. 1404: The First See is judged by no one.

Can. 1405: §1 In the cases mentioned in can. 1401, the Roman Pontiff alone has the right to judge:

1° Heads of State;

2° Cardinals;

3° Legates of the Apostolic See and, in penal cases, Bishops

4° other cases which he has reserved to himself.

§2 A judge cannot review an act or instrument which the Roman Pontiff has specifically confirmed, except by his prior mandate. [13]

The Code witnesses to the Roman Pontiff having full authority which cannot be controverted (Can 333§3) and in all matters of ecclesiastical judgment the Roman Pontiff (who holds the First See) cannot be judged by anyone (Can 1404). With regards to any decisions taken in opposition to can 1404, they are invalid according to can 1406. But we will get to that in a moment. Canon 1405 relates the areas from can 1401. (Cases which refer to matters which are spiritual or linked with the spiritual and the violation of ecclesiastical laws and whatever contains an element of sin, to determine guilt and impose ecclesiastical penalties.)  Can 1406§1 in connecting the two outlines the areas where the Roman Pontiff retains sole right to judge specifically noting that  "[i]f the provision of can. 1404 is violated, the acts and decisions are invalid". The second part of the canon states that "[i]n the cases mentioned in can. 1405, the non-competence of other judges is absolute" (Can 1406§2).

While it may appear that can 1405§2 supplies an out for Lefebvre, this would only be the case for someone who does not properly interpret the Code. The essence of can 1405§2 is that "unless the lower judge receives an explicit mandate from the Holy Father, he is absolutely incompetent (as in he doesn't have competency over the case) in the matter, and thus all action taken by the individual is null" (Peter J. Vere JCL). The Code in short witnesses to the Roman Pontiff having full authority which cannot be controverted (Can 333§3) and in all matters of ecclesiastical judgment the Roman Pontiff cannot be judged by anyone (cf. Can 1404).

Thus, it really does not matter what anyone says who sides against the Supreme Authority because anyone who would call into question the judgment of Pope John Paul II with regards to his ruling on the objective status of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta whom he consecrated) is defacto opposing themselves to the Supreme Authority and standing in judgment of the First See. To stand in judgment of the First See is to refuse submission to the judgment of the First See and that is the essence of schism.

The Code is clear: anyone who consecrates without papal mandate or receives consecration as such incurs automatic excommunication. And as the Pope applied the canons of the Code pertaining to schismatics to Lefebvre and the 4 bishops he consecrated, a consideration of the role of the pope as promulgator of the Code and its legislator are worthy of consideration:

The role of the legislator does not end with the promulgation of the law; it is his office to explain and interpret it (declaratio, interpretatio legis). The interpretation is "official" (authentica) or even "necessary", when it is given by the legislator or by some one authorized by him for that purpose; it is "customary", when it springs from usage or habit; it is "doctrinal", when it is based on the authority of the learned writers or the decisions of the tribunals. The official interpretation alone has the force of law. According to the result, the interpretation is said to be "comprehensive, extensive, restrictive, corrective," expressions easily understood. The legislator, and in the case of particular laws the superior, remains master of the law; he can suppress it either totally (abrogation), or partially (derogation), or he can combine it with a new law which suppresses in the first law all that is incompatible with the second (abrogation). Laws co-exist as far as they are reconcilable; the more recent modifies the more ancient, but a particular law is not suppressed by a general law, unless the fact is stated expressly. A law can also cease when its purpose and end cease, or even when it is too difficult to be observed by the generality of the subjects; it then falls into desuetude (see CUSTOM). [14]
As the Catholic Encyclopedia stated earlier, the Pope is the Supreme Judge of the Universal Church. He is the embodiment of Canon Law, its promulgator, and also its official interpreter. And since the Code itself specifically states that any interpretation which controverts that of the First See is "invalid" (can 1406§1) and that "in the cases mentioned in can. 1405 - which includes judging the guilt of bishops - that "the non-competence of other judges is absolute" (can 1406§2) this discussion is terminated and cannot be entertained any longer by a faithful Catholic without compromising the very dogmas of full and supreme authority over the universal church to all peoples individually and collectively being possessed by the Successor of Peter.

Whosoever commits a schismatic act is clearly a schismatic. The Pope executing his office as Supreme Legislator ruled that Lefebvre and his cronies were schismatic, incurred excommunication by virtue of the consecrations themselves, and were thereby deprived of ecclesiastical office. So considering that (i) the Code itself does not allow for recourse against a judgment or decree of the Pope (ii) the Popes themselves have explicitly denied the existence of such recourse since at least the third century (iii) the Ecumenical Councils of the Church up to and including the Second Vatican Council do not allow for it (iv) at no time in history can it be demonstrated that consecration of a bishop against the expressed wishes of the Roman Pontiff was considered anything short of a schismatic action; therefore (v) as Rome has passed judgment, this issue is settled. (At least for anyone who is truly a faithful Catholic that is.)

But before moving onto discuss additional canonical and spiritual maladies that this condition creates for adherents to groups such as the SSPX, a brief look at some of the tenets of the Code that involve punishment of violators in ways that exceed those prescribed by the Code itself is in order. Here are the relevant canon provisions that apply in the case of the Archbishop and the 1988 consecrations from the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can 1326§1 A judge may inflict a more serious punishment than that prescribed in the law or precept when:

1° a person, after being condemned, or after the penalty has been declared, continues so to offend that obstinate ill-will may prudently be concluded from the circumstances;

2° a person who is established in some position of dignity, or who has abused a position of authority or an office, in order to commit a crime;
3° an offender who, after a penalty for a culpable offence was constituted, foresaw the event but nevertheless omitted to take the precautions to avoid it which any careful person would have taken.
§2 In the cases mentioned in 1, if the penalty constituted is latae sententiae, another penalty or a penance may be added. [15]
It is obvious that Precept 1 of Can. 1326 §1 was fulfilled since Cardinal Gantin (as spokesman for the Roman Pontiff) warned the Archbishop before the consecrations that he would incur the penalty as prescribed under Can 1382 which was referenced above and needs not be repeated. Precept 2 of can. 1326 is also applicable since the Archbishop held Episcopal dignity as a Successor of the Apostles and he abused his authority to commit a crime. Were his consecrations of the 4 Bishops a crime??? Remember the words of Pope Pius XII on the very subject of consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate:
Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is criminal and sacrilegious. [16]
According to Precept 3, a judge may inflict a more severe punishment than that prescribed in the law or precept when the offender foresees but fails to take the precautions to avoid the offense. Of course the Archbishop could see what the punishment would be since Cardinals Ratzinger and Gantin specifically warned him in advance so he could not claim ignorance on this matter. In short, even though only one of these precepts is necessary for a greater punishment to be inflicted than that prescribed by the law, the Archbishop was guilty of all 3 offenses. Therefore, he could have been punished with a severity that exceeded that outlined in the Code.

However, in addition to these there were more penalties in the Code which applied to the Archbishop. According to Can. 1326 §2, if the penalty constituted is latae sententiae, even more penalties or a penance may be added. Can. 1382 is clear that the penalty of consecration without a papal mandate is one of latae sententiae excommunication; therefore Provision 2 of Can. 1326 also applied in the Archbishop's case and even greater penalties could be imposed.

Further, there are other factors to consider also in this situation. Since the Bishops of the SSPX and the priests who serve under them have no jurisdiction, they are in further violation of Canon Law and this applies the legitimacy of several sacraments administered by the Society. As Canon Law notes in provision 144:

Can. 144: §1 In common error, whether of fact or of law, and in positive and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and the internal forum.
§2 The same norm applies to the faculties mentioned in cann. 883, 966, and 1111 §1. [17]
The three faculties being discussed in canons 883, 966, and 1111 are Confirmation, Penance, and Matrimony. The executive power of governance for these sacraments is supplied by the Church and the Church has clearly ruled on the incident with Archbishop Lefebvre and his associates. They are excommunicated and the Society is in formal schism from the Apostolic See. It matters not how they twist the words of canon lawyers (all of whom must bow to the decision of the Pope ultimately anyway), it does not matter how eloquent and technical the defenses are made by Michael Davies and other Society apologists. The decision ultimately rests with the one person whose decisions are above all others except God himself: The Roman Pontiff. Rome has spoken, this issue is settled.

IV - Faculties for Confirmation, Confession, and Matrimony:

It may be entertained by some who are sympathetic to the Archbishop and others of a like mind who operate illicitly (and thus criminally and sacrilegiously) that the Archbishop's excommunication was "unjust". Individuals operating under this premise may feel that such an excommunication should not have hindered Lefebvre and his fellow bishops from their duties. All of this and more could be summed up perhaps in the following statement:

The fear of an unjust excommunication should never hinder us from fulfilling our duty; never are we separated from the Church, even when by the wickedness of men we seem to be expelled from it, as long as we are attached to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Church herself by charity. [18]
Anyone who would profess that they were not separated by the Church even by an unjust excommunication would be assenting to a proposition condemned in 1713 along with 100 others which were "Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned" (Dogmatic Constitution Unigenitus). Thus, any Catholic who wants to avoid the condemnation of Unigenitus should steer clear from groups and people who affirm that they are still in communion with the Church when they have been expelled from it by ecclesiastical authority.

All that is left now is to detail the sacraments that the Society either cannot lawfully administer (confirmation) or that they have no jurisdictional competence to administer whatsoever (confession and matrimony). Canon Law says the following on these matters:

Can. 883: The following have, by law, the faculty to administer confirmation:
within the confines of their jurisdiction, those who in law are equivalent to a diocesan Bishop;
2° in respect of the person to be confirmed, the priest who by virtue of his office or by mandate of the diocesan Bishop baptizes an adult or admits a baptized adult into full communion with the catholic Church;
3° in respect of those in danger of death, the parish priest or indeed any priest. [19]
The SSPX constantly says that their bishops have no jurisdiction. Therefore they must be establishing an apostolic mission. Since this also requires the approval of the Apostolic See, if they only show us the Roman Pontiff granting them this permission since 1976 (when Pope Paul VI suspended their faculties) then there would not be any problems with their clerics administering confirmation.
Can 886: §1 A Bishop in his own diocese may lawfully administer the sacrament of confirmation even to the faithful who are not his subjects, unless there is an express prohibition by their own Ordinary.
§2 In order lawfully to administer confirmation in another diocese, unless it be to his own subjects, a Bishop needs the permission, at least reasonably presumed, of the diocesan Bishop. [20]
The bishops of the SSPX are excommunicated for involvement in a formal and public action of schism in refusing to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff {Can 1364; Can. 1382; Can. 194 §2; Can. 333 §3; Can 1404-1406§2}. They therefore cannot licitly administer confirmation to anyone. They have no jurisdiction of their own and because they are excommunicated, they violate canon law every time they confirm anyone. Their administration of this sacrament is illicit and in direct violation of Canon Law even if they were not excommunicated (since they never obtain permission of the diocesan bishops) in whose jurisdiction they criminally usurp.
Can. 967: §1 Besides the Roman Pontiff, Cardinals by virtue of the law itself have the faculty to hear the confessions of Christ's faithful everywhere. Likewise, Bishops have this faculty, which they may lawfully use everywhere, unless in a particular case the diocesan Bishop has refused. [21]
The bishops of the SSPX are excommunicated for involvement in a formal and public action of schism in refusing to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff {Can 1364; Can. 1382; Can. 194 §2; Can. 333 §3; Can 1404-1406§2}. They therefore have no jurisdiction to hear any confessions anywhere.
Can. 968: §1 By virtue of his office, for each within the limits of his jurisdiction, the faculty to hear confessions belongs to the local Ordinary, to the canon penitentiary, to the parish priest, and to those others who are in the place of the parish priest.
Can. 969: §1 Only the local Ordinary is competent to give to any priests whomsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any whomsoever of the faithful. Priests who are members of religious institutes may not, however, use this faculty without the permission, at least presumed, of their Superior. [22]
The priests of the Society (like those of all 'independent' or non-affiliated chapels) have no jurisdiction and they are not under the local Ordinaries in the areas where these various so-called "independent priests or bishops" operate. Therefore, lacking this faculty of jurisdiction, their confessions have no sacramental validity.
Can. 1108: §1 Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest or of the priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the presence of two witnesses, assists, in accordance however with the rules set out in the following canons, and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112 §1, 1116 and 1127 §§2-3.
§2 Only that person who, being present, asks the contracting parties to manifest their consent and in the name of the Church receives it, is understood to assist at a marriage.
Can 1109: Within the limits of their territory, the local Ordinary and the parish priest by virtue of their office validly assist at the marriages not only of their subjects, but also of non-subjects, provided one or other of the parties is of the latin rite. They cannot assist if by sentence or decree they have been excommunicated, placed under interdict or suspended from office, or been declared to be such. [23]
Since the bishops of the SSPX are excommunicated for the commission of - or involvement in - a formal action of schism in refusing to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff  they have no jurisdiction to validly marry anyone or give priests any jurisdiction whatsoever. And they have the temerity to complain about minor bagatelles such as communion in the hand or the use of altar girls??? This is a classic example of "blind guides who strain the gnat and swallow the camel" (Matt. 23:24).
Can. 1110: A personal Ordinary and a personal parish priest by virtue of their office validly assist, within the confines of their jurisdiction, at the marriages only of those of whom at least one party is their subject.
Can. 1111: §1 As long as they validly hold office, the local Ordinary and the parish priest can delegate to priests and deacons the faculty, even the general faculty, to assist at marriages within the confines of their territory.
§2 In order that the delegation of the faculty to assist at marriages be valid, it must be expressly given to specific persons; if there is question of a special delegation, it is to be given for a specific marriage; if however there is question of a general delegation, it is to be given in writing. [24]
There is no room whatsoever for anyone to assert that the Bishops of the SSPX or any other bishops illicitly consecrated have the authority - or the jurisdiction to perform or supply jurisdiction for priests to perform - the sacraments listed above. It is also gravely sinful for priests affiliated with the SSPX - or any other group boasting of a valid episcopate - to celebrate the Eucharist, Extreme Unction, or Baptism -  though they administer these validly.

V - Syllabus of Actions Forbidden by SSPX and Any Other Bishops Illicitly Consecrated:

The following is a short list of what the Bishops of the Society and any others who have obtained consecration without the approval of the Supreme Pontiff are forbidden from doing. Should they act contrary to the Law considering their status as excommunicate, they show a profound lack of respect for not only Tradition (which they claim to uphold) but also the Church and thus (by extension) the Church's Founder (Matt. 10:40; Luke 10:16; John 13:20):

Can. 1331: §1 An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1° to have any ministerial part in the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or in
any other ceremonies of public worship; [25]

Since they are excommunicated, the Society bishops (and other illicitly consecrated bishops*) violate Canon Law every time they say Mass.
2° to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments ; [26]
Excommunicate bishops who either celebrate Mass, administer the sacraments, or receive the sacraments violate Canon Law yet again.
3° to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, functions or acts of governance. [27]
In other words, these Bishops have no authority whatsoever in the Church over anyone and thus no Catholic is under any obligation to obey them.
§2 If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:

1° proposing to act in defiance of the provision of §1, n. 1 is to be removed, or else the
liturgical action is to be suspended, unless there is a grave reason to the contrary. [28]

The SSPX Bishops have acted in defiance of §1, n. 1° explicitly every day since 1988. Other splinter groups that have consecrated bishops illicitly via renegade prelates may have acted contrary to this provision prior to 1988.
2° invalidly exercises any acts of governance which, in accordance with §1, n.3, are
unlawful; [29]
Which is exactly what they do since as Bishops of the Society they act as shepherds of a flock which by its very definition is an ecclesiastical office, a ministry, and an act of governance. Hearing confessions, performing marriages, celebrating Mass, performing confirmations are all ecclesiastical functions that are forbidden under Canon Law to an excommunicated Bishop. Of course they do these things anyway like the obdurate schismatics that they are.
3° is forbidden to benefit from privileges already granted; [30]
In essence the Bishops can benefit in no way from their Episcopal consecrations which were illicit and thus criminal from day one.
4° cannot validly assume any dignity, office or other function in the Church. [31]
They violate this statute also.
5° loses the title to the benefits of any dignity, office, function or pension held in the
Church. [32]
In essence they lose the dignity of the episcopate. By logical extension, no priest that depends on them for jurisdictional faculties has any faculties granted by the Church except in those rare cases of danger of death where all penalties are suspended. Barring that rare exception, there are no valid faculties for lawful administration of any of the sacraments and certain ones which require jurisdiction for validity (penance and matrimony) are thereby invalid.

VI - Conclusion:

Canon Law is no different of a science then theology and any field of study has its norms that must be followed. With Scripture study the exegete is not permitted to propose any possible interpretations that are counter to the understanding of the Church in areas where decisions have been rendered. The same holds for the study of Canon Law.

Peter J. Vere (JCL) in some of his work tipped this author off to the keys of interpretation which are the norms for properly utilizing the Code of Canon Law. They are (interestingly enough) referred to as the "General Norms" and a few that are particularly applicable in this case are the following ones (particularly relevant parts in bold print):

Can. 16: §1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to
whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.

§2 An authentic interpretation which is presented by way of a law has the same force as the law itself, and must be promulgated. If it simply declares the sense of words which
are certain in themselves, it has retroactive force. If it restricts or extends the law or resolves a doubt, it is not retroactive.

§3 On the other hand, an interpretation by way of a court judgment or of an administrative act in a particular case, does not have the force of law. It binds only those persons and affects only those matters for which it was given.

Can. 17: Ecclesiastical laws are to be understood according to the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful or obscure, there must be recourse to parallel places, if there be any, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

Can. 18 Laws which prescribe a penalty, or restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception to the law, are to be interpreted strictly. [33]

These norms were followed to the letter in the analysis of the Code in the above section. The "exception" clauses were not dealt with however. Before 'traditionalists' feel that this means there case still has merit; Mr. Vere has in his own writings dealt most excellently with all of the "exception" clauses that are paraded about by the 'traditionalist'. The reader is advised to seek his work out if there are any questions. Bear in mind though that it is the mind of the legislator that is the determining factor (Can. 16 §1, Can 17). The legislator is the Roman Pontiff himself; thus in the end it is not possible for the so-called 'traditionalist' to wiggle off the hook since the judgment of the Roman Pontiff is not subject to appeal. (See Vatican I’s Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus ,Can. 333 §3, and Can 1404.) Take a close look at the organizations on this list:


These are organization with no authority, no jurisdiction, no legitimate sacramental faculties, and thus are an endangerment to the eternal souls of the people who attend their chapels. The faculties of jurisdiction and communion are not determined by canon lawyers, savvy rhetoricians, or individuals using their own private judgment be they cleric or laity. It is also worth noting that virtually all 'traditionalist' organizations are schismatic or quasi-heretical. The Fraternal Society of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, the St. Athanasius Society, the Society of St. John (and as of 1/18/02 the Priestly Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer) are some of the very few exceptions to this rule. It is better to call the latter groups "Tridentine" Catholics to differentiate them from the groups that call themselves 'traditionalists'. As a general rule though, groups that call themselves 'traditionalists' are in rebellion against the Church because they refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff. (Thus they are schismatics.) If they go beyond this and willfully doubt or deny the legitimacy of teachings of the Church since Vatican II, they are most assuredly not in communion with the Catholic Church. (To willfully doubt or deny the validity, authority, and infallibility of a General Council is a position that is not only schismatic but also proximate to heresy.) This does not mean that there are not others in communion who are not mentioned above but it is imperative that you not take their word for it but ask for some kind of outside verification.

Currently the author cannot in good conscience recommend Una Voce because of the types of groups they are associating with. This may change should Una Voce get their act together and stop associating with sedevacantists and schismatics (or allowing those who are inclined towards sedevacantism or schism to preach at their conferences). Without the slightest hesitation does the author highly recommend the Fraternal Society of St. Peter and the other groups as they have apostolates approved by the Holy Father for those who desire the Tridentine Mass. The contact address of FSSP and many of the other organizations above will be supplied later on in this treatise.

For the groups this writer mentions above are approved by the Holy Father who is the source of communion and jurisdictional faculties in the Church (Matt. 16:19). However, the groups at the above link are groups cut off from communion with the Church of the Living God. The one empowered above all others to bind and loose these decisions in heaven (Matt. 16:19) has spoken and there is no appeal to his judgment. What else needs to be said??? Well perhaps another paraphrase of Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman is in order here. "To be deep in Canon Law is to cease to be a 'traditionalist'".

Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her... But judge them by their works.  If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak?  Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.  (Eph. 2:20) [Pope St. Pius X: Speech Delivered on May 10, 1909]


[1] St. Cyprian of Carthage: "Letter to Bishop Antonianus of Numidia" (circa AD 251-252)

[2] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Schism" (c. 1913)

[3] Michael Davies: "Angelus Magazine" excerpt (December 1990)

[4] Pope Pius XII: Encyclical Letter "Ad Apostolorum Principis" §40-43; §47-48 (June 29, 1958)

[5] Vatican Website: Excerpt from the section "Vatican Telephone Exchange" on the history of Vatican Telecommunications (circa post 1992)

[6] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Canon Law" (c. 1913)

[7] Pope John Paul II: Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta" (July 2, 1988)

[8] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[9] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[10] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[11] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[12] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[13] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[14] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Canon Law" (c. 1913)

[15] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Canon Law" (c. 1913)

[16] Pope Pius XII: Encyclical Letter "Ad Apostolorum Principis" §41 (June 29, 1958)

[17] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[18] Pope Clement XI: Dogmatic Constitution "Unigenitus" condemned proposition #91 (Sept. 8, 1713)

[19] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[20] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[21] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[22] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[23] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[24] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[25] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[26] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[27] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[28] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[29] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[30] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[31] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[32] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

[33] Code of Canon Law (c. 1983)

Additional Notes:

Citation #1 was taken from William A Jurgens "The Faith of the Early Fathers" Vol. I - pg. 230, The Order of St. Benedict, Inc. Collegeville, Minnesota, c. 1970.

The citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) article on "Schism" was obtained at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

The citations from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) article on "Canon Law" were obtained at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09056a.htm

The citations from Pope Pius XII's Encyclical Letter "Ad Apostolorum Principis" were obtained at the following link:  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12APOST.HTM

The citation from the Vatican's web-site on the "Vatican Telephone Exchange" was obtained at the following link:

The citation from Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei" was obtained at the following link:  http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/ECCLESIA.HTM

The citations from the Code of Canon Law were obtained at the following link:  http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/

The citation from Pope Clement XI's Dogmatic Constitution "Unigenitus" was obtained at the following link:  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem11/c11unige.htm  The author recommends that the reader not presume to interpret such a list at face value but strive instead to understand the context from which the condemnations were drawn. (For among these are some propositions which, in themselves and apart from the context, can have an orthodox sense.) This writer recommends the following Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) article for assistance in this undertaking:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12601c.htm

©2003, 2000, "A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'" (Part 9), 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.


Go to Next Section of "Prescription Against Traditionalism" Treatise


Return to Index Page "Prescription Against Traditionalism" Treatise


Go to Ultratraditionalist Page


Return to Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page