On Jan. 29, 2005 I received a request from Kate Mannix, Editor of "Online Catholics" to provide comments as to:

"Is the SSPX still considered to be in schism with Rome? What is the difference between them and those who prefer the traditional latin mass but are not SSPX?

"What specifically so disturbed you about the Society that caused you to write to Rome in 1998?

"The Society has been in contact with every priest in Australia last week, which is the impetus for my questions."

My responses and the resultant article by Online Catholics follows:

F. John Loughnan

The SSPX Approach's All Australian Priests
to Encourage them to Perform the so-called "Tridentine" Mass

Re: The Currency Of The SCHISM Of The SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X


January 31, 2005

To: Kate Mannix,
Online Catholics

Dear Kate,

You asked:

Q. 1. Is the SSPX still considered to be in schism with Rome?

A. 1(a) Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary of Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei" responded to my letter of August 20, 1998 to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in

N. 343/98
Rome, 27 October 1998

[extract]

a. The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that 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. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).

Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.

b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

c. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what constitutes " formal adherence to the schism " inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as " refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him " (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.

d. It may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St. Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witnesses to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith.

e. We reiterate what we stated above: "The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church." Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium#22-25).

[…]

g. You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the various dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.

h. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily on the interpretation of the law. Any more authoritative response to your questions than the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that that Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible, but should be taken as norms of moral certitude.

i. Our response to your questions may be made public.

[End extract]

[ the original documents may be viewed at
ON THE STATUS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X (SSPX)
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/ratzprl.htm ]

To the best of my knowledge, apart from Item “b” above, the advice remains the same today. Since the above date, the SSPX has broardened the “membership” to include Third Order members.

(b) The matter is covered in the following document:

Is The Society of St. Pius X in Schism? A CANONICAL HISTORY OF THE LEFEBVRITE SCHISM
by Peter J. VERE at http://www.tcrnews2.com/sspx.html

(c) Expanded upon in

Holier Than Thou - How Rejection of Vatican II Led Lefebvre into Schism
By Brian O'NEEL at http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0304fea2.asp

(d) and documented at:

ECCLESIASTICAL DOCUMENTS on the SCHISM and EXCOMMUNICATION of Archbishop Marcel LEFEBVRE and the SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X - COMPLETE DOCUMENTS
at http://jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex2.htm


Q. 2. What is the difference between them and those who prefer the traditional latin mass but are not SSPX?

A. 1. “Those who prefer the traditional mass but are not SSPX” is a VERY complex sentence!

  1. “Preference” is recognized by the Church by allowing Diocesan Bishops to provide for a Latin Mass; however, bishops are not “obliged” to do so. Some bishops are so harassed by so-called “traditionalists” that they are disinclined to grant permission in their dioceses. “Demands” are not likely to be successful.

  2. those who “prefer” range from

    - Catholics who are faithful to Rome and who have a genuine love for the Latin Liturgy – whether it be the 1962 or 1969 Latin Mass. They are not in a state of schism.

    to

    - Catholics who routinely demean the pope, the Sacraments, including the 1969 normative Roman Rite of Mass (commonly called the “Novus Ordo”), the pope, the Sacraments and the Second Vatican Council may very well be in a state of schism and suspect of heresy.

    Included in the latter group are the sedevacantists who hold that the Chair of Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII; indeed, I have come across some who speculate that the last valid pope was Pope St Pius X.

    If it may be said of adherents to the Islamic faith that they are “locked-in" to a sixth century tradition or mentality – I believe that it can also be said that the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX are “locked-in” to a sixteenth century tradition and mentality (with modifications not beyond the era of Pope Pius XII. And their “Janissarys” are the sedevacantists and followers of “Independent” vagrants.

  3. thus, those who “prefer” may become those who “refuse” or “withdraw submission" to the Supreme Pontiff OR from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” – which is the very definition of schism under Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church.


Q. 3. What specifically so disturbed you about the Society that caused you to write to Rome in 1998?
A. I think that most people who are victims of cults – and the SSPX is a cult! – are keen to try to help their fellow victims to return to a normal orthodoxy. Having been associated with the SSPX for over twenty-three years and being given the Grace to finally acknowledge the fact that there is no “good” reason to be in schism from the Catholic Church – as a penitential exercise, I decided to endeavour to repaid the damage for which I have been responsible, and to provide useful information to whomever may also wish to escape from the SSPX.

Over the past seven years I have received an enormous amount of correspondence from pro-SSPX/Independent/sedevacantist individuals who have not spared an immense amount of vitriol. However, there have also been many who have been helped.

Just before Christmas last I received correspondence from two former sedevacantists who advised me of their renunciation of sedevacantism and reconciliation with Rome. One was a former Editor of the St Francis Nwsletter (now defunct) which provided much information on the twenty two claimants to the Chair of Peter since Vatican II.

The second person (and her husband) were, for thirty years, adherents to one of those claimants, Francis Schuckardt, founder of the C.M.R.I. at Mount St Michael's in Spokane. Schuckhardt would claim to be Pope Hadrian VII.

Within the last two weeks, I received correspondence from a former supporter for fifteen years of “The Little Pebble”, William Kamm. He, his wife and family of nine children are now also reconciled.



Further Information:

Fr. Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C., Ph.D. editorialized in the July 1988 issue of “Annals Australia” on “The Tragedy of Marcel Lefebvre” – the issue immediately following the illicit consecrations by Archbishop Lefebvre. The full article may be viewed at The Tragedy of Marcel Lefebvre

I will quote short extracts:

[…]

The Integrists and their supporters have taken every opportunity to discredit all the Pontiffs since Pius XII.

Paul VI was especially hated by them. In December 1975 Vers Demain a Canadian journal of the Integristes claimed that the real Pope Paul VI had been kidnapped, and a Marxist look-alike created by plastic surgery had taken his place as head of the Church.

Lefebvre's dislike for Cardinal Villot, Paul VI's Secretary of State, and for the Vatican Curia generally, is well-documented. This has led some commentators to suggest that the unnamed well- placed Italians who allegedly suggested to the author of In God's Name that Pope John Paul I had been murdered because he was planning on reversing the direction of the post-Vatican II Church, were in fact monarchist supporters of the rebel Archbishop.

It would be naive in the extreme to claim that Lefebvre was excommunicated solely because of his support for truly traditional Catholic values; or because the post-Vatican II Church was jealous of his success in attracting seminarians to Ecône.

As Pope Paul VI said many times, if all that Archbishop Lefebvre wanted was permission to say Mass in the Latin according to the Rite of Pius V, he would have granted it gladly.

[…]

Those who choose to follow Marcel Lefebvre into excommunication from the Catholic Church need to realise that they are unconsciously involving themselves in issues much wider than whether Mass is offered in Latin, or whether the Green catechism is used for religious instruction in schools.

[…]



Finally

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Catholics having a preference for the Latin Mass. It is catered for within the Archdiocese of Melbourne through the Society of St Peter. If it was readily available closer to my home, I would certainly attend it. However, when the normative Mass – the so-called “Novus Ordo,” is performed in accordance with the rubrics and General Instructions in a dignified and respectful manner, then I am content. I must admit that there have been some occasions when I have not been content – but that is another story.

There is so much more that can be said and has been written; I hope that this will be helpful,

F. John Loughnan
January 31, 2005



The following article appeared in Online Catholics
at: http://onlinecatholics.com.au/issue37/print.php?page=all


The Society of Pius X - followers of excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre - tried to recruit every priest in the country last week without a word from Australian bishops.

Australia's 1400 priests were last week contacted by the schismatic organisation, the Society of Pius X without objection by any Australian bishop. With roots in a deeply anti-democratic, monarchist tradition, the Society is being quietly rehabilitated by those opposed to the Second Vatican Council.

Every priest in Australia received an 8 page letter, and a book of 'confessions' by priests who had returned to the Tridentine rite. The purpose of the letter is to encourage and facilitate the use of the rite, which the Society describes as "the Mass of All Times...the unchangeable Catholic faith threatened by the novelties of the second Vatican Council". The letter was similar to letters send to thousands of Catholic priests in France, Germany and the USA, according to Fr Rainer Becher, a spokesperson for the Society in Australia.

The Society of Pius X was founded by Swiss Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in November 1970 as a reaction to the reforms of Vatican II. On June 30, 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four priests to the episcopacy without papal mandate. He was assisted in the act by His Excellency Antonio de Castro Mayer, retired bishop of Campos, Brazil. It was for this act of disobedience, rather than his adherence for the Tridentine Mass, that the Archbishop was excommunicated.

Almost immediately, on July 18 1988, another organisation was established, known as the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP). Following a request by Cardinal Ratzinger, the FSSP was granted a home at Wigratzbad, in southern Germany, which remains its international headquarters to this day.

The FSSP was acceptable because it promoted itself as a group promoting the 'traditional Mass'. However 'traditional' can refer to the Novus Ordo - the Mass as drawn up by Vatican II but celebrated in Latin - or the Tridentine Mass of 1570. By contrast, the Society only regards the Tridentine Mass as authentic.

However the interests of the two organisations appeared reconciled just before Christmas when it was reported that the Pope had created an Apostolic Administration, or personal prelature of the Holy See (answerable only to the Pope) to encourage a return to the Tridentine rite. The Apostolic Administrator is Bishop Rifan of Campos, Brazil - a member of the Fraternity, and successor to Lefebvre's close associate, Bishop Castro Mayer. Bishop Rifan will lead a delegation of youth at this year's World Youth Day.

Fr Paul Stenhouse wrote in Annals in 1988:

Those who choose to follow Marcel Lefebvre into excommunication from the Catholic Church need to realise that they are unconsciously involving themselves in issues much wider than whether Mass is offered in Latin, or whether the Green catechism is used for religious instruction in schools...

It is well-known that Lefebvre's movement has the solid backing of the European Monarchists who are still disgruntled at what they see as the 'betrayal' of Europe's monarchical 'tradition' by Pope Paul VI through his support for the implementation of the decrees of Vatican II.

'Liberty,' according to [Lefebvre], leads to religious indifferentism, anarchy and disorder; 'Equality' leads to 'democratic' ideas in the Church - Collegiality of Bishops, Episcopal Conferences, Diocesan and National Synods, all of which he sees as destructive of authority; and 'Fraternity' spells the end of missionary endeavour, because according to him it makes all religions equal.

It would be naive in the extreme to claim that Lefebvre was excommunicated solely because of his support for truly traditional Catholic values... amongst his followers are numerous political militants whose ambition is to set up a 'Christian' State in Europe. (extract)

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference this week had no view of the Society or the letter to priests. Bishop David Walker, Chairman of the Commission for Clergy, is overseas. Bishop Luc Matthys, Secretary of the Commission, did not return Online Catholics call or email.

Read More:

Society of Pius X

Paul Stenhouse on AB Lefebvre

Is The Society of St. Pius X in Schism?

About the Tridentine Rite



More on The SSPX and other Dissident Integrists from F. John Loughnan's Files
See "Annals Australasia's Un-official Home Page
What's New? at Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page
Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page