Replies

(1) The word of the Pope in judgment, which by itself is sufficient.

This plainly meant that they did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra, §9)

Well that certainly does not apply to the SSPX who are insisting that the Popes clear up the issues dividing the Church with Supreme power and clear defined ex-Cathedra statements.

(2) The argument used by the Pope, which is quite clear and compelling.

I beg to differ. The argument was vague and dubious. Disobedience doesn't "imply" anything JPII simply inferred it where there was no reason to and basically sat in judgment of a man's interior disposition against his explicit statements to the contrary.

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", §2)

(3) The testimony of traditional Catholic belief on the matter; to give just two examples:

For the right of ordaining bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions. (Pius VI, Charitas, §10)

The context of the encyclical indicates that the schismatic act is the taking of the secular oath which denies papal authority. Not the disobedience of LeFebvre which had the tacit approval of JPII if not his veiled intentions to never give LeFebvre and the Society a bishop.

After the Ascension St. Peter .. since authority to teach and govern the faithful was conferred upon the Apostles as a body and can be obtained only by incorporation into that body. The very nature of episcopal office and of the primacy proves that the Roman Pontiff has exclusive authority to constitute bishops for every part of the Church. Bishops are shepherds for portions of the flock that was committed in its entirety to the pastoral care of St. Peter and his successors; but no one becomes a shepherd of any portion of a flock unless he be made such by the chief pastor of the whole flock. It is also evident that the chief purpose of the primacy,-the preservation of unity,-could not be realized if the bishops of the Church were not subject in all things to her supreme pastor. The authority of the Roman Pontiff to constitute bishops for all parts of the Church may be exercised directly by personal appointments, or indirectly by delegating others ... 6 Matt. xvi, 19. (E. Berry, D.D., The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, St. Louis: Herder, 1927. p. 408-9)

The key to the difference between these teachings and the much different situation with the SSPX is over the issue of jurisdiction. The SSPX were not granted jurisdiction by LeFebvre (it wasn't his to grant and if he tried that truly would have been a schismatic act) The bishops as bishops have no authority over anyone.

Gerard,

The context of the encyclical indicates that the schismatic act is the taking of the secular oath which denies papal authority

That's not the reason that he gives: "the right of ordaining bishops-belongs only to the Apostolic See ... it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained ..." (emphasis added).

Disobedience doesn't "imply" anything

It certainly does when one usurps a right which de jure divino belongs exclusively to the Roman Pontiff precisely because of his primacy. That does, in fact, imply a denial "in practice" of the papal primacy which it refuses to recognize.

Doctors, however, commonly note: ... Fifth, he is a schismatic who separates himself in effect and deed from the Pontiff, although he does not directly intend it: Wherefore although for heresy internal dissent is also required, schism however can exist without the express internal will of denying subjection to the Pontiff: for the very deeds themselves suffice ... so they are properly schismatics who elect another as a pseudo-Pontiff, or who without the consent of the true Pontiff celebrate a general council, or follow it, since in this they arrogate to themselves the pontifical power. (John Cardinal De Lugo, Tractatus De Virtute Fidei Divinae, dist. xxv., sect. iii., emphasis added)

the disobedience of LeFebvre which had the tacit approval of JPII

According to you this is "tacit approval"?

In the letter that you sent me, you seem to reject all acquisition of previous discussions, since you clearly manifest your intention of "giving yourself the means of pursuing your Work," notably in proceeding under little and without apostolic mandate to one or many episcopal ordinations, this in flagrant contradiction not only of the prescriptions of canon law, but also with the protocol signed May 5th and the instructions relative to this problem contained in the letter that Cardinal Ratzinger sent you at my request May 30th.
With a paternal heart, but with all the gravity the present circumstances require, I exhort you, venerable brother, to renounce your project which, if it is realized, could not but appear as a schismatic act of which the inevitable theological and canonical consequences are known to you. I ardently invite you to return, in humility, to full obedience towards the Vicar of Christ. (John Paul II, Letter to Msgr. Lefebvre, 9 June 1988)

The key to the difference between these teachings and the much different situation with the SSPX is over the issue of jurisdiction. The SSPX were not granted jurisdiction by LeFebvre

Yes, yes, we've all heard this before. But Berry says "After the Ascension St. Peter and his successors take the place of Christ as visible head of the Apostolic body, with full authority to carry out His will ... Consequently the Roman Pontiff, as sucessor of St. Peter, has sole authority to accept new members into the Apostolic Body, i. e., he alone has authority to constitute bishops ..."

If one is a Catholic bishop, then he is a member of the episcopal body: "one is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body" (LG 22). As Tissier de Mallerais admits in Fideliter: "would these bishops, not recognized by the pope, be legitimate? Would they enjoy the 'formal apostolic succession'? In a word, would they be Catholic bishops? ... it has to do with the divine constitution of the Church, as all Tradition teaches: there can be no legitimate bishop without the pope, without at least the implicit consent of the pope, by divine right head of the episcopal body. The answer is less evident; in fact, it is not at all evident..." (emphasis added).