My Journey out of the Lefebvre Schism

If you’re a Catholic who’s faithful to the Church’s teaching Magisterium, you’ve probably met up with followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s 1988 schism, known as the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). They’re filled with devotion to the Blessed Mother, extremely conservative with regard to most moral issues afflicting the Western world today, and quite reverent before the Blessed Sacrament during their old Latin liturgies. In short, on the surface, adherents to Archbishop Lefebvre’s schism appear to be devout Catholics

It’s easy to sympathize with these folks since most of them have joined the SSPX after being scandalized by contemporary abuses in doctrine and liturgy in some of our Catholic churches in North America. In fact, it was precisely because of such sympathies, as well as the beauty of the Tridentine Mass, that I found myself frequenting SSPX chapels about eight years ago. Like most SSPX adherents, at the time I thought that my separation from Rome was merely temporary.

I failed to realize, however, that at the root of every schism, as the present Code of Canon Law explains, “is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (Can. 751). Such ruptures from communion with the Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out, “wound the unity of Christ’s Body” (CCC 817). For that reason, at the heart of my journey back to full communion with Rome lay many questions about the unity of the Church as an institution founded by Christ.

The Novus Ordo Missae: Intrinsically Evil?
A common argument now put forward by the SSPX is that the revised liturgy of Pope Paul VI is intrinsically evil, or at the least poses a proximate danger to the Catholic faith. This would mean that the post-Vatican II liturgy is in and of itself contrary to the law of God. How individual Lefebvrites approach this issue will often vary, but they typically insist that the new Mass contains heresy, blasphemy or ambiguity. In resolving this question, I came to the personal conclusion that Christ has a sense of humor, since the same text from Catholic Tradition the SSPX quotes in defense of this claim is the very text that refutes it.

A preliminary observation is in order. The Mass has not changed since Christ instituted this sacrament on the night before His crucifixion. In essence, there is neither an “old” Mass nor a “new” Mass, but only the Mass. In fact what changed after the Second Vatican Council was not the Mass, but the liturgy.

This means that while the “accidents” (to use a classical theological term) differ somewhat between the pre-Vatican II liturgy and the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI, their essence remains the same: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ transubstantiated into the Eucharist. This central mystery of the Mass takes place regardless of whether the priest celebrates according to the liturgical books in use before the Second Vatican Council or according to the liturgical books revised by Pope Paul VI. In fact, both sets of liturgical books are usages of the same Roman liturgical rite.

When I was associated with the SSPX, to defend the claim that the reformed liturgy is intrinsically evil I used to quote the seventh canon on the Sacrifice of the Mass from the Council of Trent. This canon states: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.”

Let’s look at this more closely. Since the definition of intrinsic evil is “something which in and of itself is evil,” we see from the Council of Trent that an approved liturgy of the Church cannot be such. For something that is intrinsically evil is naturally an incentive to impiety, while the Council of Trent declares dogmatically that the approved liturgical ceremonies of the Catholic Church cannot be incentives to impiety.

But wait a second: Wasn’t the revised liturgy of Pope Paul VI an approved liturgy of the Church? Of course! So according to the Tradition of the Church as dogmatically defined at the Ecumenical Council of Trent, I could only conclude that the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI cannot be an incentive to impiety. It necessarily follows, then, that neither could it be intrinsically evil. Thus in my defense of the schismatic position I stood refuted by the very Catholic Tradition from the Council of Trent that I was seeking to preserve through adherence to the SSPX schism.

I think you should have checked your facts better:

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO ECCLESIA DEI
N. 117/95
Rome, 29 September 1995
Mr. Scott M. Windsor, Sr.
P. O. Box 11502
Prescott, Arizona 86304-1502
U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Windsor,

Thank you for your letter of 4 September 1995 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters related to our particular competence.

We are aware of the lack of authorized celebrations of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal in the Diocese of Phoenix and we can appreciate your desire to assist at the traditional Mass. We also recognize your earnest desire to remain in full communion with the Successor of Peter and the members of the Church subject to him, a desire which obviously prompted you to write this letter. In order to answer your questions we must explain the Church's present evaluation of the situation of the Society of St. Pius X.

There is no doubt about the validity of the ordination of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. They are, however, suspended "a divinis" , that is prohibited by the Church from exercising their orders because of their illicit ordination.

The Masses they celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2 ). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

While it is true that the participation in the Mass and sacraments 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 mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. Father Peter R. Scott, District Superior of the Society in the United States, has publicly stated that he deplores the "liberalism" of "those who refuse to condemn the New Mass as absolutely offensive to God, or the religious liberty and ecumenism of the postconcilliar church." With such an attitude the society of St. Pius X is effectively tending to establish its own canons of orthodoxy and hence to separate itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. According to canon 751 such "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the communion of the members of the Church subject to him" constitute schism. Hence we cannot encourage your participation in the Masses, the sacraments or other services conducted under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

The situation of at least one of the "independent" priests in the Diocese of Phoenix to whom you allude is somewhat different. He and the community which he serves have declared their desire to regularize their situation and have taken some initial steps to do so. Let us pray that this may soon be accomplished.

Finally, we may say that "the Hawaiian case" resulted in a judgment that the former Bishop of Honolulu did not have grounds to excommunicate the persons involved, but this judgment does not confer the Church's approbation upon the Society of St. Pius X or those who frequent their chapels.

With prayerful best wishes, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary

We fully accept the authority of the pope when it is legitimately exercised.

Here's another example of a bishop following his conscience.

"In a rare disciplinary move, Pope John Paul II has stripped a German bishop of some of his authority, after the bishop refused to follow a direct order from Rome to stop abortion counseling in his diocese.

The Pope's action, announced on March 8, came after Bishop Kamphaus-- alone among the 28 diocesan bishops of Germany-- refused to comply with a Vatican policy that had been set in 1999. The policy called for an end to the issuance of certificates that could be used to fulfill the legal requirements for obtaining an abortion.

Under a German law that went into effect in 1995, women who wish to procure abortions must produce a certificate showing that they have received counseling on their options. Among the counseling centers authorized to issue such certificates, many were affiliated with the Catholic Church. Some prelates, following the lead of the late Archbishop Johannes Dyba of Fulda, immediately recognized the moral hazards involved, and insisted that Church-related agencies must not issue the certificates. Others reasoned that if they continued to offer counseling for pregnant women, they might dissuade some of them from having abortions.

Eventually the German bishops asked Pope John Paul to settle that deabte, and-- after months of inconclusive haggling-- in 1999 he issued his clear judgment: the Church-sponsored agencies must cease to issue these certificates. After a lengthy "transition period" that lasted through the end of the 2000 calendar year, the German bishops complied, with one notable exception.

In the Limburg diocese, which includes the city of Frankfurt, Bishop Franz Kamphaus refused to follow the directive from Rome. In February, the Frankfurter Allegemeine Zeitung reported that Bishop Kamphaus received a personal letter from Pope John Paul, hand-delivered by the papal nuncio in Germany, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, informing him that he must follow the new policy or relinquish his responsibilities. Still the bishop held firm; the German media reported that he might be willing to resign rather than implement the Vatican policy."

Bishop Kamphaus, like Lefebvre, supports dissent via a false freedom of conscience: "Conscience can oblige the individual to acts that are in contradiction of Church teachings .... It is the responsibility of the individual alone."

Your position is that the Pope is always right

The Church has a specific hierarchical organization for the tasks related to doctrine, that organization being called the Magisterium. The Magisterium is headed by the Pope. Lumen Gentium section III explains the tasks of the Pope and Magisterium, summarized excerpts of which are shown below:

The Church receives the Faith as delivered by Jesus Christ and handed down through the ages from the Apostles and their successors. The Church does not "create" or "establish" or "invent" the Faith or its principles.
The Church teaches the Faith it has received to the current generation.
The Church defends the Faith it has received against error (i.e. heresy).

#8: "... [The Catholic Church] is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it (cf. Matt. 28:18, etc.), and which he raised up for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. ..."

Can. 209 §1 "Christ's faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions."
Can. 209 §2 "They are to carry out with great diligence their responsibilities towards both the universal Church and the particular Church to which by law they belong."
Can. 212 §1 "Christ's faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church."

Can. 590 §2 "The individual members are bound to obey the Supreme Pontiff as their highest Superior, by reason also of their sacred bond of obedience."
Can. 601 "The evangelical counsel of obedience, undertaken in the spirit of faith and love in the following of Christ, who was obedient even unto death, obliges submission of one's will to lawful Superiors, who act in the place of God when they give commands that are in accordance with each institute's own constitutions."
Jesus Christ personally gives us the perfect example by being totally obedient to His (and our) Eternal Father. Lumen Gentium tells us:

#3. "The Son, accordingly, came, sent by the Father who, before the foundation of the world, chose us and predestined us in him for adoptive sonship. For it is in him that it pleased the Father to restore all things (cf. Eph. 1:4-5 and 10). To carry out the will of the Father Christ inaugurated the kingdom of heaven on earth and revealed to us his mystery; by his obedience he brought about our redemption."
#36: "Christ, made obedient unto death and because of this exalted by the Father (cf. Ph. 2:8-9), has entered into the glory of his kingdom. All things are subjected to him until he subjects himself and all created things to the Father, so that God may be all in all (cf. 1 Cor. 15:27-28)."

If Jesus Christ and Mary were obedient, why should we be different? Some might claim that Jesus was a revolutionary because He "changed the laws." The reality were that the moral laws were made more strict ^[4], and Jesus revealed deeper the doctrine of God. The Bible says it quite clearly in Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished."
The difficult and scandalous issue of clergy and religious who do not propagate the Church's authentic teachings also needs to be addressed. Very simply, the laity are not required to obey the disobedience of their local Church hierarchy. All must give assent to a "God who reveals" (Vatican II Dei Verbum #5) over that of man, even when the man is part of the Church hierarchy. Acts 5:29 emphasizes this: "But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men." We also know from the Church's teaching that the Pope alone is preserved from teaching error via the charism of infallibility (Vatican II Lumen Gentium), so we can always trust the Pope. Bishops, priests and nuns are not exempt from teaching doctrinal errors. Vatican II clearly states that we are to obey the Church hierarchy when they are in communion with the Pope, not otherwise. Long prior to Vatican II Pope Pius IX wrote in On Faith And Religion (Qui Pluribus), "Whoever resists authority resists the ordering made by God Himself, consequently achieving his own condemnation; disobeying authority is always sinful except when an order is given which is opposed to the laws of God and the Church." Based on the number of dissenting Bishops, priests and nuns, a prudent and responsible laity will obtain and study the teachings of the Church to defend their souls against the various heresies and heretical influences rampant in today's world.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.