Status of the society of St Pius X (Part I)

MY mother enjoys going to Mass at the Our Lady of Victories Church along Valley Road in New Manila (Quezon City). She finds the Tridentine Mass more solemn and pious. Besides, she is quick to add, the priests there are always in cassock and more approachable for confession. But I also seem to remember a circular from then Archbishop of Manila, the late Cardinal Sin, that those Lefebvrist priests were schismatic and the Catholic faithful were not supposed to go to them for anything. Now, to heighten my confusion, I just read a circular from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cubao reprinting a Decree of the Congregation of Bishops (Vatican City, 21.I.2009) concerning the lifting of the excommunication pronounced on the four bishops consecrated by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre in 1988. Can you shed some light on this matter?

IN order to fully understand this question and in the service of the truth—given that a half-truth is the worst lie—we have to dedicate two issues of this column, starting with a backgrounder in the present one.

A Short Background on Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
and the Society of St Pius X.

In November 1970, French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded the Society of St Pius X (SSPX), with a seminary in Econe (France). In the confused doctrinal environment of the so-called post-conciliar crisis, his exaggerated traditionalism was initially perceived as a bastion of Catholic orthodoxy. The Econe Seminary even received a commendatory letter from the Congregation for the Clergy in February 1971. However, Lefebvre’s erroneous idea of Tradition soon led him to condemn the Second Vatican Council (especially its teachings on ecumenism) and the Novus Ordo (the new Order of Mass that came in force in 1970).

In May 1975, the Holy See ordered Lefebvre to close the Econe Seminary and in June 1976—given his refusal to obey—suspended him from ordaining. What followed was a sad chapter—still unfinished—in the history of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre continued to distance himself from the Holy See, continued to ordain priests and in June 1988 committed the schismatic act of consecrating, without papal mandate and against the explicit prohibition of the Holy See, four bishops for the Society of St Pius X. With this, he incurred the automatic penalty of excommunication—a fact declared by a solemn Decree of Excommunication issued by the Sacred Congregation for Bishops on 1 July 1988, and confirmed by Pope John Paul II through the Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, issued motu proprio on 2 July 1988.

John Paul II himself explained Lefebvre’s error: 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 ... 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 (Ecclesia Dei, n.4).

Schismatic nature of the Lefebvre Movement & the Excommunication of its Bishops in 1988.
The Code of Canon Law gives the following definition: [S]chism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him (c.751). Lefebvre’s defenders argued that the consecration of the four bishops in June 1988 did not constitute schism as defined by Canon Law. Without getting into the details, we can simply recall that the Code itself established—following canonical doctrine—that laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically (CIC, c.16, §1). John Paul II was the legislator at the time of the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law; thus, he was the most qualified to interpret it, not only because of his role as Pope (which of itself gave him the right to determine the Code’s meaning), but also because it was by his authority that the Code was originally promulgated. His interpretation of the Code was thus—by definition—guaranteed to be accurate.

John Paul II explained that the consecrations of June 1988 constituted a schismatic act, not simply because they were unauthorized (i.e., without the mandate from the Holy See as required by Law), but because they were directly disobedient (i.e., against an expressed prohibition to proceed with such consecration) to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter: 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 (Ecclesia Dei, n.3).

As a result, the Pope declared quite clearly: 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 (ibid.).

Formal Papal Prohibition of Supporting and Participating in the Lefevbre Movement.
In the Decree of Excommunication of 1.VII.1988, the Sacred Congregation for Bishops solemnly declared: The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre; otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.

Because of the danger the new schism posed to souls, John Paul II further issued a direct and solemn appeal to the faithful to stop any and all support for the SSPX: In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the ... duty ... of ceasing their support in any way for that movement (Ecclesia Dei, n.5, c).

He also specifically warned against formally adhering to the Lefebvrist schism: 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 (ibid.).

This was the Church's definitive—and up to the moment current—statement on the subject of the status of Lefebvre and his organization. Nevertheless, to further clarify the issue, we need to distinguish between the clerics involved in the Lefebvre Movement and the laymen who participate in it.

Canonical status of priests and laymen of the Society of St Pius X

In a document of 26.VIII.1996, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (PCILT) clarified that the automatic excommunication declared by the two aforementioned documents as regards Lefevbre and the Society of Pius X is premised on a formal adherence to the schism. While respecting the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as regards the notion of formal adherence to the schism, the Pontifical Council clarified that such adherence implies two complimentary elements:

1st an internal element, consisting in a free and conscious agreement with the substance of the schism—i.e., to opt to follow Lefebvre rather than to obey the Pope;

2nd an external element, consisting in the exteriorization of such option, the clearest manifestation of which would be the exclusive participation in the ecclesial acts of the Lefebvrist Movement, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church. The document was quick to clarify, however, that this latter does not consist an unequivocal sign, since it is possible for any faithful to participate in liturgical acts of the SSPX without necessarily sharing in its schismatic spirit.

The above considerations resulted in a different treatment of clerics as compared to lay people in the SSPX as regards their canonical status:

1st In the case of the deacons and priests, it would seem that their ministerial activities within the schismatic movement was a clear sign of the presence of the two aforementioned elements, constituting a formal adherence to the schism. Thus, regardless of how they may present themselves in attire and manners, canonically they were considered under automatic excommunication.

2nd In the case of the other faithful, however, the document stated that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrist Movement—done without identifying themselves with the doctrinal and disciplinar disunity of the movement with the Holy See—would not be sufficient to imply a formal adherence to the schism. The document emphasized the need to take into account, above all, the intention of the person and whatever external manifestation of their interior dispositions. Thus, the document concluded, the various situations should be judged in a case-to-case basis, in the competent seat of the external or internal forum.

Preliminary Conclusions

This was the situation for the remainder of the Pontificate of John Paul II and the first years of the Pontificate of Benedict XVI, who—as John Paul II’s right-hand man in the whole Lefebvre issue—had tried in vain at that time to avert the schism. Summarizing then,
1) The 4 bishops ordained by Abp. Lefebvre—including Abp. Lefebvre himself and another bishop who concelebrated that Episcopal consecration—were all excommunicated automatically when they formally adhered to that schismatic act.

Aside from the automatic excommunication, that excommunication was expressly declared by a Decree of Excommunication issued by the Sacred Congregation for Bishops on 1 July 1988, and confirmed by Pope John Paul II through the Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, issued motu proprio on 2 July 1988.

2) Aside from the aforementioned bishops, no other followers of Lefebvre were expressly excommunicated. However, as is true of any automatic excommunication, such expressed declaration of the penalty is not absolutely necessary—i.e., the penalty is automatic as soon as the crime is formally committed. Nevertheless, in a document of 26.VIII.1996, the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (PCILT) clarified that the automatic
excommunication affected clerics and lay people in the SSPX differently as regards their status:

1st In the case of the deacons and priests, it would seem that their ministerial activities within the schismatic movement was a clear sign of the presence of the two aforementioned elements, constituting a formal adherence to the schism. Thus, regardless of how they may present themselves in attire and manners, canonically they were considered under automatic excommunication.

2nd In the case of the other faithful, however, the document stated that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrist Movement—done without identifying themselves with the doctrinal and disciplinary disunity of the movement with the Holy See—would not be sufficient to imply a formal adherence to the schism. The document emphasized the need to take into account, above all, the intention of the person and whatever external manifestation of their interior dispositions. Thus, the document concluded, the various situations should be judged in a case-to-case basis, in the competent seat of the external or internal forum.