Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX, and Schism

SSPX emblem

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre participated in the discussions of the drafting of the conciliar documents of the Second Vatican Council.

On November 1, 1970, Bishop Charriere agreed to Lefebvre’s request to establish a religious society, and the Society of Saint Pius X was formed.[1] They were given a pia unio (pius union) status, with the caveat of being an ad experimentum for six years, liable to change because of its provisional status.

On June 10, 1971, Lefebvre said:

How can I agree to abandon the Mass of all ages or to admit to place it at the same level as the Novus Ordo, created by Annibal Bugnini, with the participation of Protestants to make of it an equivocal supper that eliminates totally the Offertory, and touches the very words of the Consecration.[2]

Lefebvre issued his Declaration against the Church on November 21, 1974:

We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.
We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.
All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.
No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.[3]

The pia unio status of the Society was revoked by Bishop Pierre Mamie on May 6, 1975. The Society no longer had any canonical standing and did not have the ability to licitly ordain priests. Lefebvre went ahead with ordaining new priests in 1976, ignoring Pope Paul VI’s explicit instructions that he could not do so. In response, the Pope declared a suspension a divinis to Lefebvre, which prevented him from issuing the sacraments licitly.[4]

Lefebvre would go on to refuse all overtures by the Papacy to bring the Society back into communion with Rome until his death, even something as simple as celebrating the Novus Ordo Mass one time. Pope Paul VI was correct when in 1976 he told Lefebvre that: “The position you have taken is that of an anti-pope. (…) You have judged the pope as unfaithful to the Faith, of which he is the supreme guarantor. (…) If it were so, I should resign and invite you to take my position to lead the Church.”[5] Lefebvre continuously slandered Paul VI by calling him a “liberal.” He said that the Pope “was in favor of modernist ideas, in favor of a compromise with the world,” “that it was necessary to accept humanist ideas.”

Lefebvre was recognized by Paul VI as having a schismatic mentality at least as early as 1976, when the latter wrote a letter to him stating: “Pray to the Holy Spirit, dear Brother. He will show you the necessary renunciations to help you to reenter in the path of a full communion with the Church and with the successor of Peter.”[6] In 1976 he wrote: “It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude whatever may be these people’s intentions the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of St. Peter and therefore outside the Church.” Then in 1977: “We admonish you with all Our strength: do not worsen the bad example given by your attitude, do not make your break from the unity and charity of the Catholic communion irreparable.” Finally, in 1978 he announced: “If your words are taken in their full meaning, is there not justification for saying that you refuse, or are ready to refuse, communion with the members of the Church subject to the Pope?” He added: “[T]he Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith considers that, by your declarations about submission to the Council and to the post-conciliar reforms of Paul VI–declarations with which your whole behavior and especially your illicit ordination of priests are in accord–you have fallen into grave disobedience, and that all these declarations and acts, by their own logic, lead to schism.” Therefore, even before the 1988 consecrations subsequent formal admonishment of schism by Pope John Paul II, Lefebvre and the SSPX were in material schism.

In 1982, during a meeting with Cardinal Ratzinger, Lefebvre said the following:

Now we believe that the reform is evil, poisoned by ecumenism, and we refuse to accept it and we are obliged to advise all the faithful against it. God only knows how long the reformers will close their eyes to the destruction of the faith, of the morals, of institutions.[7]

Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer sent a letter to the Pope in 1985 claiming that it was the Pope himself responsible for promoting schism:

Holy Father, your responsibility is heavily engaged in this new and false conception of the Church which is drawing clergy and faithful into heresy and schism. If the Synod of Bishops perseveres in this direction you will no longer be the Good Shepherd. Please put an end to the invasion of Modernism within the Church.[8]

In 1988, wanting to secure the future of the SSPX, Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer illicitly (but validly, since bishops retain the sacramental gifts of Holy Orders even when in a situation like Lefebvre) consecrated four bishops. Lefebvre had previously been warned by the Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger, and Cardinal Gantin not to do so, with the result being excommunication.[9]

In reaction to this, Pope John Paul II promulgated Ecclesia Dei on July 2, 1988. Speaking of the “unlawful episcopal ordination,” he writes:

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. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. 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.

He also wrote:

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 fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.

Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law states that “schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” As per this definition of schism, it is clear that the SSPX meet the requirement. In 1988 Lefebvre said: “I certainly do not like to be in opposition to the holy father, but I have no choice considering what is coming to us from Rome at present, which is in opposition to the Catholic doctrine and is unacceptable to Catholics.” As per their website, the SSPX today still adhere Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration: “…we refuse …to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.”[10] Unless the Society rejects this claim, they will still be in schism, no matter how many indults they receive.

The SSPX attempted to use their own interpretation of Canon Law to support their stance, but this will always fail, for Pastor Aeternus states: “The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon.”[11] This means that the definitive interpretation comes from the Pope, not the SSPX. Canon law also supports this: “No appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff,”[12] (Can. 333 §3). Canon 752 states: “Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

By consecrating the four bishops against Pope John Paul II’s order to not do so, Lefebvre incurred excommunication, as per canon law 1382: “A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.”[13] Canon 1013 states: “No bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone a bishop unless it is first evident that there is a pontifical mandate.”[14]

In 1989 Lefebvre reiterated his stance that the Church was in schism, opining that “salvation is in the Catholic Church and not in the Conciliar Church that becomes more and more schismatic.”[15] He died in 1991, and the Society did not change course, holding to the schismatic values while resulted in Lefebvre’s excommunication.

In 2007 Pope Benedict XVI published Summorum Pontificum, which eased restrictions on celebrating the 1962 Missal. He wrote, “Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”[16]

Benedict lifted the excommunications of the four bishops in 2009. However, he explained:

With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the “Society of St Pius X” to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church. As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.[17]

In 2013, Cardinal Mueller commented on the SSPX, saying:

The canonical excommunication of the bishops for their illegal ordinations was revoked, but a de facto sacramental excommunication remains for their schism; they put themselves out of communion with the Church. After that we are not closing the door and never will, but we are inviting them to be reconciled. But they too must change their attitude, accept the conditions of the Catholic Church, and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion for membership.[18]

Pope Francis further extended an olive branch to the Society when in 2015 he gave permission for SSPX priests to hear confessions and administer absolution licitly throughout the Jubilee Year of Mercy, and then the following year said, “I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”[19]

In 2017 the Pope also “decided to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society, according to the following provisions.” Cardinal Mueller, with the approval of the Pontiff, clarified this allowance by stating:

Certain that in this way any uneasiness of conscience on the part of the faithful who adhere to the Society of St. Pius X as well as any uncertainty regarding the validity of the sacrament of marriage may be alleviated, and at the same time that the process towards full institutional regularization may be facilitated, this Dicastery relies on Your cooperation.[20]

Archbishop Lefebvre lied for years about not signing two of the conciliar documents, when in fact he signed them all.[21] In an interview he was asked:

You have debated and taken part in the deliberations of the second council of the Vatican, have you not?
Yes.
Did you not sign and agree to the resolutions of this council?
No. First of all, I have not signed all the documents of Vatican II because of the last two acts. The first, concerned with “Religion and Freedom,” I have not signed. The other one, that of “The Church in the Modern World”, I also have not signed. This latter is in my opinion the most oriented toward modernism and liberalism.
Are you on record for not only not signing the documents but also on record to publicly oppose them?
Yes. In a book, which I have published in France, I accuse the council of error on these resolutions, and I have given all the documents by which I attack the position of the council – principally, the two resolutions concerning the issues of religion and freedom and “The Church in the Modern World.”[22]

That he lied by saying he didn’t sign two of the documents should make him suspect to his supporters. When asked why he was against these two documents (which he signed), he said: “Because these two resolutions are inspired by liberal ideology which former popes described to us-that is to say, a religious license as understood and promoted by the Freemasons, the humanists, the modernists and the liberals.” He also says that Cardinals of the Council were acting “as if they were agents or servants of humanist secret societies.” He then goes on to say: “This ideology says that all the cultures are equal; all the religions are equal, that there is not a one and only true faith. All this leads to the abuse and perversion of freedom of thought. All these perversions of freedom, which were condemned throughout the centuries by all the popes, have now been accepted by the council of Vatican II.” Yet nowhere in any of the conciliar documents is this said.

The first document he cites, Declaration on Religious Freedom, states: “We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men.”[23] The second document he says he expressed an issue with, The Church in the Modern World reads:

This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.[24]

Other Vatican II documents were similar in their emphasis on the primacy of the Church. Unitatis Redintegratio says:

For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.[25]

Nostra Aetate does not say that other religions are true, but that “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.”[26]

Lefebvre and the SSPX constantly bring up that they are practicing the “true Catholic faith.” If their assertion is correct, that the Church has now succumbed to heresy, then Jesus’ promise that “the powers of death shall not prevail against it,”[27] is false, making Him a liar. Of course, this would also mean that the SSPX cannot have the true faith. Lefebvre also says the Pope was wrong to want dialogue, since “dialogs are contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic faith.” This is blatantly false, given that councils like the Council of Florence were based upon dialogue and solving disputes to bring more to the true faith. In fact, the Council of Trent invited Protestants to participate in the proceedings:

The sacred and holy, general Synod of Trent,-lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legate and Nuncios of the holy Apostolic See presiding therein,-grants, as far as regards the holy Synod itself, to all and each one throughout the whole of Germany, whether ecclesiastics or Seculars, of whatsoever degree, estate, condition, quality they be, who may wish to repair to this oecumenical and general Council, the public faith and full security, which they call a safe-conduct, with all and each of the necessary and suitable clauses and decrees, even though they ought to be expressed specifically and not in general terms, and which it is Its wish shall be considered as expressed, so as that they may and shall have it in their power in all liberty to confer, make proposals, and treat on those things which are to be treated of in the said Synod; to come freely and safely to the said oecumenical Council, and there remain and abide, and propose therein, as well in writing as by word of mouth, as many articles as to them shall seem good, and to confer and dispute, without any abuse or contumely, with the Fathers, or with those who may have been selected by the said holy Synod; as also to withdraw whensoever they shall think fit. It hath furthermore seemed good to the holy Synod, that if, for their greater liberty and security, they desire that certain judges be deputed on their behalf, in regard of crimes whether committed, or that may be committed, by them, they shall themselves nominate those who are favourable towards them, even though the said crimes should be ever so enormous and should savour of heresy.[28]

The SSPX cites Cardinal Rosalio Jose Castillo Lara to support that Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic, or disobedient act. They cite him as saying, “The act of consecrating a bishop [without a papal mandate] is not in itself a schismatic act.”[29] Yet this is deceptive, because it leaves out the context for the quote. When asked directly about what the matters of the consecrations by John Beaumont and John Walsh, Lara said:

You bring to my attention a matter of importance. You asked if I could tell you what exactly I said in the interview of 10th July 1988. The substance of what I said is as follows: ‘In the case of Lefebvre and the four priests consecrated bishops by him, there are two offenses canonically speaking, that they have committed. The fundamental offense is that of schism, that is, refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and breaking communion with the Church. This offence they had already previously committed. Only that, now, the second offense, that of consecrating bishops, formalizes, in a certain sense, and concretizes the first, and makes it explicit. Schism is a delict which can be personal. It does not require having a number of people. Individuals can do it on their own. Lefebvre and his followers, inasmuch as they refused submission to the Pope, were already, by that fact itself, in schism. The intent of the act of consecrating bishops is already to create a church with its own hierarchy. In this sense, the consecration of bishops becomes an act of schism. One should keep in mind, however, that the act of consecrating bishops is not in itself a schismatic act. In fact, in the Code, where offenses are treated, these two are treated in two distinct headings. There are delicts against religion and the unity of the Church. And these are apostasy (i.e. renouncing the faith), schism and heresy. Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate is, on the other hand, an offense against the proper exercise of one’s ministry. For example, there was an excommunication of the Vietnamese Archbishop, Ngo Dinh Thuc in ’76 and ’83 for an episcopal consecration, but it was not considered a schismatic act because there was no intent to break with the Church. Ngo Dinh Thuc represents a pitiable situation, as there is some mental imbalance.
With regard to Econe, Lefebvre and the four priests, they are under two excommunications: one for the offense of schism, the other, reserved to the Apostolic See, for the offense of consecrating a bishop without a pontifical mandate.’ I hope that this is helpful for you.[30]

As is obvious from this, Lefebvre and those following him are in schism. It is also important to note that the SSPX were in schism even before the consecrations took place, as the Cardinal makes clear. Yet, the SSPX continue to use Cardinal Lara out of context, even after he has given his disapproval of being associated with them. His personal assistant, Fr. Joseph Fox, OP, wrote in response to an inquiry from John Beaumont: “As you know from your previous correspondence with His Eminence, he is no proponent of the divisive activities of the deceased excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre or his followers…. He would like you to know that he has never given his approval for the publications of those associated with the Lefebvre movement nor has he any intention of doing so in the future.”[31]

The SSPX also believes Vatican II can be ignored because it was not involved in matters pertaining to the extraordinary magisterium.[32] Pope Paul VI can be cited in support of this:

There are those who ask what is the authority, the theological qualification, which the Council wished to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it has avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, committing the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and so clearly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and purposes of the individual documents.[33]

As is made clear, even the ordinary magisterium must be assented to, as Vatican I declared: “Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”[34] It is further stated, “Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.” Again, “Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon.” Cardinal Ratzinger made clear to Lefebvre that Vatican II is binding on all Catholics: “Of course you can express your anxiety over certain interpretations that may have been given to various texts of the Council; you may also legitimately criticize such interpretations. But it is not possible for you to call into question the authentic doctrine of the ecumenical Second Vatican Council, the texts of which are magisterial and enjoy the highest doctrinal authority.”[35]

In the encyclical Ad Apostolorum Prinipis, Pope Pius XII wrote: “bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff.”[36] Further, “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.” It also says, “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.”

The Superior Generals of the SSPX have spoken of the Church in the worst terms. “They have spiritual AIDS, they have no grace, their immunity defense system is gone,” said Lefebvre.[37] According to him, “The See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome” are “occupied by Antichrists.” Bishop Fellay was in agreement: “The Church has cancer. We don’t want to embrace the Church because then we’ll get cancer too.”[38] Do these sound like men who love Christ’s body, His Holy Church?

In 2017 Cardinal Burke flatly stated:

[T]he fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Abp. Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff. And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X.[39]

The words of Jesus sum up the SSPX situation well: “if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”[40]

[1] http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-1.htm

[2] http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-1.htm

[3] http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/1974_declaration_of_archbishop_lefebvre.htm

[4] http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-1.htm

[5] https://aleteia.org/2018/05/20/an-unpublished-and-unvarnished-dialogue-between-paul-vi-and-archbishop-lefebvre-has-been-released/

[6] https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1227

[7] http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-2.htm

[8] http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/a_short_history_of_the_sspx-part-4.htm

[9] https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1392

[10] http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vatican_ii.htm

[11] https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/vatican-is-dogmatic-constitution-pastor-aeternus-on-the-church-of-christ-243

[12] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM