MORE SSPX HYPOCRISY - NO LEGITIMACY

As of July, 1994, the SSPX had a new Superior General.  He is the excommunicated Bishop Bernard Fellay who replaced the outgoing Fr. Franz Schmidberger.  So a Bishop is now Superior General of the SSPX.  To understand the significance of this we need to review the following quotations.

• "...claiming territorial jurisdiction 'is the hallmark of a true schism.'" Bsp. Williamson to Malcolm Brennan, Angelus, May 1989, bottom page 11, right hand column
• "Because, as Superior General (Fr. Schmidberger) of the Society of St. Pius X, he has a form of jurisdiction." Fr. Carl Pulvermacher on being asked why Schmidberger was not made a bishop in 1988; Angelus, Sept. 1988, pg. 28
• "Next we wanted to make very clear that we were not creating a parallel Church, and consequently we were not setting up a sort of 'little Pope.'" Fr. Schmidberger in an interview, on why he was not selected for episcopal consecration in 1988, entitled "The Society of St. Pius X, 1990, An Authoritative Overview, An interview with Rev. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior General"
• "Care is being taken that nobody can accuse us of trying to give our bishops any sort of territorial jurisdiction, that no one bishop,..." and "So you see, we are taking pains to maintain firmly this principle of not allocating territory to the bishops. They are to ordain and to confirm, to take my place and to do what I have done over the years. For all other purposes it is, of course, the District Superiors (and the Superior General - Ed. note) who are appointed to particular areas and who, whenever possible go to the aid of souls who call on them." Lefebvre in an interview to Fideliter magazine published in the Angelus, Nov. 1989, page 2, left hand column

The Society seems to have no aversion to prevarication, to bending the truth, when it suits its needs.  Time and time again the leadership of the SSPX has told its adherents that to give one of the bishops jurisdiction over any area would, in fact, amount to schism.  So now Bishop Fellay is in charge of the Society worldwide.   You can't claim much more jurisdiction than that.

As per Bishop Williamson in the first quote, Fellay's "territory," and, hence, jurisdiction, being the entire planet, we have a matter of schism.  Fr. Pulvermacher confirmed this in the second quote.  So now, according to Schmidberger, the Society has set itself up as a parallel church with a 'little Pope' as per the third quote.  Lefebvre himself confirms in the fourth quote that the office of Superior General is, indeed, one of jurisdiction.  In this he has distinguished between the administration of the sacraments, as the role for his bishops, and the administrative role of the Superior General in running the daily affairs of the Society throughout the world.  What more proof is needed, even by the Society's own standard, that the SSPX is (as I have said since I began the AGENDA), de facto and de jure (by fact and by law), in schism?

In reality, as soon as Lefebvre and his priests began to administer sacraments anywhere without permission, they were claiming jurisdiction.  To claim to have the right to do something is to claim jurisdiction.  The one goes with the other.   Now the Society consistently maintains it has the right to do what it does.  Because of that claim, coupled with the lack of official permission to operate anywhere, it is clear that the Society has been in schism since the mid 70s.

While Society apologist Michael Davies argues on the basis of the letter of the law, we know the law consists also of its spirit - which the SSPX has violated.  By any objective standard, and on both counts, according to the letter of the law and its spirit, Lefebvre and his Society have been, and are, schismatics.

Because of this action, there can no longer be any doubt.  They stand condemned by their own words.  But don't bother bringing all this to their attention.  For without a doubt the motto of the Society is now "Noli me factis confundere" - don't confuse me with facts.

All that can be said of those civilians who now remain with the Society is that there are none so blind as those who choose not to see!  No Society priest or brother need any longer feel obliged by any vow of obedience for the Society is clearly outside the Church.

THREE GREAT LOYALTIES

I received the following from a priest of the Society in early 1993.  From his observations it was evident that the SSPX, consciously or not, is undermining the loyalty of the children at St. Mary's (and you can include places like Post Falls), to God, Family, and Country.  His comments have been edited slightly for the sake of clarification.  Here is how he said these loyalties were being destroyed.

God - The enemies of the Catholic Church first used physical persecution to destroy it.  Finding that this didn't work, they went to infiltration to undermine Catholic doctrine.  But the enemy knew that some Catholics wouldn't be taken in, so, they had to formulate a plan for those who saw through the subversion.   Since the doctrine could not be undermined with these people, the people in whom the doctrine must adhere had to be undermined.  This he says St. Mary's is doing.

Family - When a student's Faith is neutralized, public worship as a family is destroyed as the son loses interest in the Faith while the parents are still firm traditional Catholics.  Call parents and tell them their son is holding wild parties and is listening to rock music.  Parents will believe a priest.  Have a tattletale box for students to put names in.  Have the nuns teach the children to report on others and not tell the parents what they are being told.  Parents have observed this (at St. Mary's).

Country - Condemn forms of government in which individual rights are recognized and whose form was so established to protect those rights.  This approach, for the sake of consistency, must attack any government that espouses these same principles with respect to individual rights.  Thus, if it is bad in America, it must be bad everywhere.  Now, if you deny forms of government that allow individual freedom, the only other form of government left is tyranny.  This the Society is working toward by virtue of its abhorrence of governments that respect individual liberties.

DISOBEDIENCE & SCHISM

In its rebellion against Rome, the Society of St. Pius the Tenth often quotes Canon Law whether the code of 1917, which is no longer applicable, or, the new code (1983), which they criticize for a number of "failings."  They use such quotes to convince the unwary of the legitimacy of their revolt against Rome and of their disobedience to the Holy Father.

The history of the Society of St. Pius the Tenth and Archbishop Lefebvre has been a pattern of blatant disobedience since the mid 1970s that culminated in a formal schism with the illicit consecration of bishops by Lefebvre in 1988.  The Society deceitfully tries to convince the unwary that only they are truly faithful to the traditions and magisterium of the Church and to the Holy Father.

It must be remembered that the Holy Father, whatever his faults, is, indeed, the Supreme Judge (and, therefore, Legislator) of the Church (Canon 1442).  The appeal by the Society to Canon Law to excuse their infidelity to Holy Mother Church and the person of the Pontiff cannot temper nor alter the legitimate disciplinary decisions of John Paul II.  The Society is in schism and its bishops are, without a doubt, excommunicated.   The law is clear.  His Holiness, in his Motu Proprio, Ecclesia Dei, has said that "...such disobedience -- which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy -- constitutes a schismatic act."  There can be no mitigating (extenuating, modifying, justifying) circumstances in this for those involved (Lefebvre, his co-consecrator, and the priests made bishops) were given formal canonical warning not to perform the episcopal consecrations in 1988.  Hence, John Paul II has said that "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."

The Society speaks of John Paul II as the legitimate Holy Father and even tells the unsuspecting that they pray for him in all their Masses.  But actions speak louder than words.  The Society is not under Rome; it does not account for its activities to Rome; it does not operate in compliance with Canon Law; it establishes missions and chapels throughout the world without the permission of local bishops as required by the same law the Society appeals to when it suits them.

FACULTIES & JURISDICTION - Deception & Concealment

Many of the Society's followers are unaware that it is now issuing Decrees of Nullity - or annulments.  Just as they have no authority to do that, there is another matter of which its patrons are not familiar, and, of which, the Society, deceitfully, dishonestly and fraudulently, is not telling them.  This concerns the matter of Faculties.   And, just what are faculties?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines a "faculty" as an "authorization granted by authority."

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, tells us that a "faculty" is "a license or authority; a privilege granted by the ordinary (i.e. the bishop - Ed.) to a man by favor and indulgence to do that which by law he may not do..."

The Concise Catholic Dictionary defines "faculty" as "the grant of authority from an ecclesiastical superior to perform legally some act of jurisdiction or ceremony. The jurisdiction granted to a duly ordained priest by the bishop of the diocese validly to hear confessions."

In truth, as Society priests do not approach the local ordinary for the faculties to hear confessions and officiate at marriages, those wanting to become involved, or, wishing to continue their association with the SSPX, need to understand that all confessions heard by Society priests, and all marriages at which they officiate are invalid.  This is not a point which can be argued.  All Catholics are bound by various provisions of the Code of Canon Law.  All Catholics are, therefore, affected by the Code as it pertains to the administration of the sacraments.

We also have the spectacle of the Society saying for years that neither Lefebvre nor the bishops he consecrated were claiming jurisdiction.  But, given what we've read above, does their claim have any weight?  Consider this simple point.  To claim to have the right to do something (in the case of Society bishops, to confirm, ordain and consecrate; in the case of its priests, to provide the Mass and the sacraments) is to claim jurisdiction.  You cannot have one without the other!  Reconsider the definitions of "faculty" listed above.

The paradox is that by saying they weren't claiming jurisdiction, they were telling one and all that they didn't have the authority to do what they've been doing since the mid 1970s. After reading the pertinent sections of Canon Law regarding the sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, it is self-evident that (without jurisdiction) Society priests cannot validly hear confessions or officiate at marriages.  Such as they attempt are null, void, zip, zilch, nada - no sins forgiven; no marriages performed.

THE CATCH

Now the Society persists in the claim that it has the right to provide the Mass and the sacraments; which kind of leaves it in a Catch 22.  For this puts the Society in a position where if it does not claim, or have, jurisdiction, then the confessions and marriages attempted by its priests are invalid for a lack of faculties.  If it does claim jurisdiction, the Society then confirms that it is in schism, which means its priests lack faculties and their confessions and marriages are still invalid.

THE CHURCH'S LAWMAKER

As all Catholics are bound by Canon Law, so also are they bound by the "legitimate" decisions of the Holy Father, the Supreme Judge of the Church on earth.  By legitimate is meant decisions which do not require actions which are contrary to faith and morals.  In all other things the legitimate wishes of the Holy Father must be obeyed.  As painful as this realization may be for many priests and laymen, it is, nevertheless, true.

NECESSITY?

The argument used by the Society to justify their activities is the defense of "necessity."  The claim is that this necessity exists because of the current state of affairs in the Church; because of the modernist corruptions which have accelerated since Vatican Council II.

But of what does this "necessity" consist?  It obviously isn't just a matter of countering corrupted teachings of faith and morals for an organization of laymen can do that.  No, it must be something related to the unique faculties acquired with the reception of Holy Orders - that is, the Sacraments.  So the only necessity (for the layman) is the need for priests to administer the sacraments.

There are those who argue that they have some difficulty with the Mass of Paul the Sixth, the Novus Ordo Missae, or, with the sacraments other than the Mass because changes have been made in their form which may invalidate them.  Some would say these changes do invalidate these sacraments.  But that is a subjective argument which can be determined only by Rome and Rome has said they are valid.

So we have to ask, are there enough priests worldwide to administer the sacraments for the laity?  I dare say that virtually everybody that reads this lives in a diocese in which there are priests to administer the sacraments if the faithful desire to receive them.  So where is the "necessity," as the Society argues it, for there is none with respect to the availability of the sacraments.

As for the New Order of Mass, the legitimate authority at Rome tells us that the Mass of Paul the Sixth is a valid rite of the Church.  Even Archbishop Lefebvre didn't say that Mass was invalid.  Indeed, when Fr. Peter R. Scott, District Superior for the United States, gave his infamous monologue in the Society's church in Oak Park, Illinois, (Our Lady Immaculate) on October 18, 1992, he told the congregation present that if they didn't like the way things were being done, they could go to the Novus Ordo because its Masses are valid and the Society had no problem with anyone attending them.   So much for the Society's feigned concern for the souls under their care according to their own arguments.

If the Society, in the person of Fr. Scott, had no problem with its patrons attending the new Mass it also had no concern for them receiving the rest of the sacraments in the "new order" or "conciliar church," as the Society calls the Catholic Church, either.  So, if the Society says the faithful may attend Novus Ordo liturgies and receive the attendant sacraments, where, again, is the "necessity?"

INVALID? IMMATERIAL!

Logically, if the Masses and sacraments in the churches under Rome were, somehow, invalid, this would not affect the faithful.  Why?  Simply because their obligation consists in attending Mass and receiving the sacraments as prescribed.   The new order liturgies and sacraments are all the Church has given most people.   They, nevertheless, fulfill their obligation through the partaking of what the Church gives them.  They are not required to question the validity of the sacraments.   That is a matter for the Church to resolve.  But to listen to Society rhetoric one can only conclude that this "necessity" revolves around sacramental validity.

AND THEIR SALVATION?

We must remember that Our Lord wills that all men be saved.  How He will effect this in every case is known but to Him.  As we cannot obtain our salvation without the help of His grace, He will provide it in proper measure for us.  If the new order sacraments were to be invalid, He will still supply the grace that is necessary for salvation because the layman has no way of knowing whether a sacrament is confected validly or not.

Does anyone actually believe that over the centuries all the Masses and sacraments have been valid?  Of course not!  Does anyone honestly believe that God has condemned anyone to hell because he attended a Mass that he didn't know was invalid? Ridiculous!

Here is another thing to remember. Sr. Lucy, one of the three Fatima children, was told by the Blessed Virgin Mary that she would obtain heaven.  Remember that?  Now Fatima is a Church approved apparition and pre-Vatican II to boot.  But Sr. Lucy partakes of the Novus Ordo Mass and sacraments.  She also has voiced no support for the so-called "traditionalist" movement.  So what will the Society do now?  Disavow Sr. Lucy and the events of Fatima?  If Sr. Lucy can work out her salvation while participating in the Novus Ordo, then, as distasteful as some may find it, so can others.

God has not left us to our own devices in this matter.  This is why He gave us the Church to rely upon so we would not have to take our own decisions in these matters.   No doubt there are many who will deny this, just as some deny that there is a legitimate, sitting Pope on the chair of Peter.  But to deny this is to deny the indefectibility (without defect, unfailing, without decay) of the Church and call Our Lord a liar.  As Catholics, fidelity to the Church means obedience to it even when the task may be distasteful (unless it is clear that what is required of us would be harmful to our faith), rather than relying on our own judgment in the manner of Protestants.

AND THE TRIDENTINE RITE?

But what of the Tridentine Rite?  Do we not have a right to that venerable liturgy?  Without a question!  While Society priests have the right to use the Tridentine Rite of the Mass, though they are all suspended a divinis, (not permitted to administer the sacraments) it is not a reason which can justify the Society's continuing disobedience to Rome.  Nor can it justify a layman's support of this schismatic and neo-heretical group which, by any objective standard is outside the Church.   We must remember that a Catholic fulfills his Sunday obligation by attendance at any recognized rite of the Church.  Any! Not just the Tridentine.

With all this in mind, the question, again, is, where is the necessity?   Obviously, there is none.  As there is no "necessity" then all of the Society's appeals to Canon Law and Canon law experts and jurisdiction and whatnot, are moot (immaterial, irrelevant, arguable, etc.) and without merit.

The Society, still claiming it is Catholic, is bound by the present code of Canon Law as well as the personal decisions of the Holy Father.  Yet in typical liberal fashion, lacking a credible basis for its "necessity" defense, the SSPX, nevertheless, picks and chooses what it is it will obey and that which it will not. In this there is no difference between the Society of St. Pius the Tenth and the "reformers" of four and five hundred years ago or the modernists it decries today.  But also forgotten by the Society and its adherents is that two wrongs do not make a right.  If the Modernists are wrong in wreaking havoc in the Church, the Society is just as wrong in its reaction by its schism - its disobedience to lawful authority.

THE LAW

The pertinent sections of Canon Law which are of importance to the patrons of the SSPX (indeed, to all Catholics) respecting the administration of the sacraments of penance and matrimony are as follows:

PENANCE

Canon 966

Section 1 - For the valid (effective, effectual) absolution of sins it is required that, besides the power received through sacred ordination, the minister possess the faculty to exercise that power over the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.

COMMENT: Because Society priests do not approach the local ordinary (bishop) for permission to administer the sacraments in his diocese, Society priests do not possess the faculty to exercise that power over the faithful.

Section 2 - A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a concession granted by competent authority in accord with the norm of canon 969.

COMMENT: As the "law" does not give Society priests the faculties for the administration of the sacraments, they must approach the local bishop to obtain it.  This the Society does not do.  Therefore, none of the confessions of the faithful who approach Society priests are valid.

Canon 969

Section 1 - The local ordinary alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful; however, presbyters who are members of religious institutes should not use such a faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior.

Canon 970

The faculty to hear confessions is not to be granted to presbyters unless they are found to be qualified by means of an examination or their qualifications are evident from another source.

Canon 973

The faculty to hear confessions habitually is to be granted in writing.

COMMENT: The underlined part of Canon 969 is what is referred to in Canon 966.  Society priests, not having approached local bishops, cannot, therefore, have been found "qualified," and, as such, cannot validly hear confessions.   Ask any Society priest to see his written certification from the local bishop to hear confessions - if they insist they have the authority to administer these sacraments.

We see from these sections of Canon Law that Society priests do not possess the faculty to hear the confessions of the faithful.  As for the laity, they might as well be telling a stranger on the street their sins for all the good it will do.  The only place priests of the Society could ever have legitimately held faculties is the Swiss diocese in which it was canonically established (if, indeed, Lefebvre ever had the permission of Rome to ordain priests in the first place).  The problems attendant with the hearing of confessions by Society priests also exists with respect to the sacrament of matrimony.

MATRIMONY

Canon 1111

Section 2 - To be valid the delegation of the faculty to assist at marriages must be given expressly to specified persons; if it is a question of a special delegation, it is to be granted for a specific marriage; however, if it is a question of a general delegation, it is to be granted in writing.

COMMENT: As Society priests have not approached the local bishops for this faculty they are not "specified persons" as referred to in this canon and they most assuredly do not have such a grant in writing from the local bishop.   Being married before a Society priest is no different, for a Catholic, than being married by a Justice of the Peace, a Protestant minister, or a ship's captain.  In other words, it is no marriage at all.

It should be noted that in these canons the law uses the word valid and not licit (lawful, permitted, properly).  A priest administering sacraments without the proper authority may be doing something illegal but the sacraments confected would still have the desired effect for the faithful.  The administration of the sacraments would have been illicit but not invalid -- except in the case of Penance and Matrimony.  In the case of these two sacraments the law uses the word valid - not licit.   Therefore confessions and marriages are without effect where these canons have not been observed.

With respect to the part of Canon 969, section 1, after the semicolon, it must be remembered that, ultimately, all authority for the dispensing of the sacraments resides with Rome.  Therefore, no superior of the Society is able to grant lawful faculties when he (and all Society priests) is not in communion with Rome and does not possess legitimate authority to grant faculties.

The matter of whether the Society's bishops are, or are not, excommunicated comes up regularly.  But this matter is laid to rest just as easily as the matter of the administration of the sacraments of penance and matrimony.

THE CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS

Canon 1382

A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop and the person who receives such a consecration from a bishop without a pontifical mandate incur an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

COMMENT: Archbishop Lefebvre argued from necessity in consecrating four of his priests bishops.  As there is no "necessity," his argument is without merit.  Remember also, it was to provide bishops for the SSPX, not the Church, that Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer consecrated four bishops.  There had been no papal mandate for Lefebvre to perform these consecrations.  In fact, Lefebvre had been expressly forbidden, by the Holy Father, to do so.  To understand the scope of papal authority it is instructive to read the following sections of Canon Law.

PAPAL AUTHORITY

Canon 1401

By proper and exclusive right the Church adjudicates:

1) cases concerning spiritual matters or connected with the spiritual;

2) the violation of ecclesiastical laws and all those cases in which there is a question of sin in respect to the determination of culpability and the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties.

Canon 1404

The First See is judged by no one.

Canon 1405

Section 1 - It is the right of the Roman Pontiff himself alone to judge in cases mentioned in canon 1401:

1) those who hold the highest civil office in a state;

2) cardinals;

3) legates of the Apostolic See and, in penal cases, bishops;

4) other cases which he has called to his own judgment.

Section 2 - A judge cannot review an act or instrument explicitly (in forma specifica) confirmed by the Roman Pontiff without his prior mandate.

Canon 1442

The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world; he tries cases either personally or through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See or through judges delegated by himself.

COMMENT: It is evident from the foregoing that all legislative authority resides in the person of the Holy Father - not in Canon Law.   Canon Law is nothing without the sanction of the Pope.  We must remember the words of Our Lord in His grant of legislative authority to St. Peter, "And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19)   The Holy Father's word, then, is the law.  It is clearly dishonest for the Society to appeal to Canon Law to show that they are not in schism.  The Holy Father has clearly said that they are in schism in his Motu Proprio (by his own initiative) Ecclesia Dei. He said, in section 3, that

"In itself, this 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." (See Canon 751)

The Society doesn't bother telling those who patronize it about all these details especially as they concern confessions and marriages.

CANON 1117

This question has been asked. "If they (the SSPX) are in schism, does that not put them outside the Roman Catholic Church?"  This question was asked because of a comparison between the Eastern Orthodox Church, all of whose sacraments are valid, and the Society of St. Pius the Tenth where Penance and Matrimony are invalid.   The statement then follows, "If ...(the) SSPX is in schism, then it would follow that they could go their own way and follow the rules laid down by their own bishops, just as the EO (Eastern Orthodox) do."  This statement thus suggests that because the Eastern or Greek Orthodox are not under the authority of Rome, that the SSPX enjoys the same sacramental validity as the Greek Orthodox Church because, having been excommunicated for schism, Society priests are outside the Church as well.  This is, however, erroneous.

Canon 1117 is the one which would allow the Society this privilege if they were to invoke it.  But that is undoubtedly the last thing, at least today, that they wish to do.  Canon 1117 says: "With due regard for the prescriptions of can. 1127, section 2, the form stated above (of Canon 1116) is to be observed whenever at least one of the contractants was baptized in the Catholic Church or was received into it and has not left it by a formal act."

What this means is that sacramental validity would be assured for the SSPX if, by a formal action, by which all would know, the Society was to withdraw from the Catholic Church and reject Catholicism.  Lacking such a formal declaration, Society priests are still bound by the proscriptions of Canon Law, and, hence, the sacraments of Penance and Matrimony are invalid when they attempt to administer them.

While having been excommunicated, they have not renounced the Catholic Church as have the Greek Orthodox.  Society priests are still Catholics, with some invalid sacraments, though excommunicated and out of communion with the Church as opposed to non-Catholics, with valid sacraments, who are outside the Church.  The point is, Society priests are still Catholic and bound by Canon Law though excommunicated.

So there you have the rest of the story. For full sacramental validity, the Society must publicly declared that they are no longer members of the Catholic Church.  Then whoever wishes may patronize them and be assured of full sacramental validity -- that is, if their conscience will allow them also to withdraw from the Catholic Church to "enjoy" that privilege.   But this, of course, would mean that the faithful, in good conscience, would have to reject the Catholic Church as the Church established by Christ.  Can the majority of Society patrons do that?  I doubt it.

And, lastly, for all laymen associated with the Society of St. Pius the Tenth, they must remember that the Church teaches that when we are in a doubtful situation, our duty is to leave that situation.   If you have any doubt about the legitimacy of the Society, you must abandon it and return to the Church.