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.

If what you claim is true, it is up to US to stand up for what is beautiful and true and our Church, not merely denounce the misguided leaders of the Church on Earth and claim they're not Catholic.

Thank you for verbalizing the point I was also trying to make. Ultima ratio and the other sspxers prefer the easy way out ... follow a schismatic group ... rather than stand up to the liberal element and speak the truth.

You need to do more reading. Read Klaus Gamber's work, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy. Gamber was among the greatest liturgists of the twentieth century. He called the Novus Ordo a tragic break with Tradition. Ratzinger wrote the preface. Read it. I am not making stuff up.

No one may attack Tradition, not even the Pope. It is what protects the deposit of faith. It is what connects us to apostolic times. This new Mass is not traditional, it is Protestant and seeks to make Protestants out of Catholics. It does exactly what Luther did in Germany and Cranmer in England. Little by little the people were innoculated to great change--first by the imposition of small changes, then gradually by means of radical changes. People woke up to find that they were no longer Catholics. Now people are forbidden to kneel for Communion. It is a logical consequence of everything else--the disappearing tabernacles, the wreckovations, communion in the hands.
Catholics are slowly forgetting their heritage. Catechesis is deliberately withheld from the younger generation so that we may forget our true identity.

I did not get here overnight. Do you think I did not resist this conclusion? I was as horrified as any of you with the idea of linking up with a group as ostracized as the SSPX. It was nowhere on my radar screen.

But I truly believe, after having studied the facts, that the Pope was wrong and Lefebvre was absolutely right. The Church has been throwing away its patrimony hand over fist. In pursuit of a radical ecumenism it is demolishing its culture, its doctrines, its ancient rituals. Everything is up for re-definition. Nothing is to be left unchanged. It is a revolution. There is a hatred of Tradition in all this. Tradition is the enemy.

SSPX is the living memory of the old Faith, pure and simple. It is exactly what the Church had always been, no more and no less.

I believe its destiny is to preserve the Catholic Church for saner times when future generations will understand better what went wrong and how to get back on track.

The Indult Tridentine Rite, as I mentioned in a different post, is alive and well in many communities. It will survive for as long as there is a demand. However, there is NO GOING BACK! The Novus Ordo the liturgy has been embraced by millions of catholics around the world. And, yes, most practicing catholics do find God in that liturgy.

I too am an admirer of St. Francis deSales and his Introduction to the Devout Life is my daughter's favorite text. It is a favorite of mine as well. One thing about this saint that has always struck me has been his balance and prudence. I admire that. I believe it is what the age calls for. We are living in crazy times when those who are most sane are deemed most crazy. Anyhow, thanks for your own discretion and Christian restraint.

Everything is up for re-definition. Nothing is to be left unchanged. It is a revolution. There is a hatred of Tradition in all this. Tradition is the enemy.

I have to run, but what exactly, other than what the SSPX claims has been changed in Mass and the Rosary (which developed over the centuries anyway) is such a break from tradition? And where is it written that absolutely everything in the way of evolved tradition is in stone?

There are many people out there who like change for the sake of change. I disagree with them and gained a fairly nasty reputation for being a snot-nosed disrupter when I spoke up. It mostly had to do with music, of course, but there is no way this effected my faith. And there is no way now, anyone could get me to turn my back on the church by linking up with a group declared in schism. I would far prefer to fight for change inside, where it would do a lot of good, than run away.

Easy way out? We travel an hour and fifteen minutes every Sunday. Our priest is often late--he must travel to three states in one day, saying Mass in many different chapels. Our church is a humble affair. There is money only for necessities. And we are constantly ganged-up on by bigots who call themselves Catholics but have the souls of Gestapo agents. But one thing alone is our consolation: we are practicing the true Faith of our forefathers.

However,there are many other statements that do not do this,and that do not belong to the Ordinary Magisterium,but rather to the Authentic Magisterium,

Last week I said I was very concerned because there seemed to be so many qualifying adjectives before the word Magisterium that it was almost impossible to discern the Magisterium,who in union with the Holy Father,proclaimed the teachings that were to be held,by Catholics, with Scripture and Tradition, as Truth.

At that time I said that the words ordinary,extraordinary,current,universal,teaching,living and ecclesial were tossed around,as well as Supreme Ordinary and Solemn Extraordinary. Sometimes the terms were capitalized and sometimes not.Occasionally the term was prefaced with infallible or uninfallible all adding to the confusion and consequent probability of misuse.

Now I find that there is also an "Authentic" magisterium.On top of that turns out that either or all may be the Magisterium of the Universal Church or the See of Rome.Holy mackeral,somebody better get a grip,this is ridiculous.

I am betting pretty soon,we will be seeing the term the "Pope and the Sola Magisterium have decreed--",which I am sure will mean that the "Pope and I have decided----".

The Novus Ordo the liturgy has been embraced by millions of catholics around the world.

I make it a practice to tell everyone I know about the beautiful Tridentine Mass we have available to us in Boston. The location is very easy (although an hours' ride) and so beautiful, especially the High Mass with the Gregorian Chant, that it makes you want to cry. I tell them that the statues are intact, candles galore, Tabernacle is front and center, traditional music, communion on the tongue, a wonderful, holy priest and proper dress (including a head covering) is the norm.

Ya know what? NO ONE I've mentioned it to has ever actually attended it. They express surprise that there is still a Latin Mass, but no interest in attending one.

IMO, it's too bad as they could see firsthand what they should use to measure their own parish NO (and see what we have lost in some of the less orthodox NO Masses), but the bottom line is, Latin is not going to be the norm, ever - especially in the future generations.

the "Pope and the Sola Magisterium have decreed--"which I am sure will mean that the "Pope and I have decided----"

LOL! I think you've summed it up.

But, seriously, this is very distressing. I keep reminding myself that there have been many worse moments in the Church (for example, times when there were multiple "Popes"), but we are all going through enormous difficulties now, because we have not only the words and actions of the JPII to consider - and I agree that some of his actions, such as kissing the Koran, have been a little hard to understand - but all sorts of people are rising up to say that they understand what the Pope meant, and that anybody who even has a moment of concern about this is a heretic or schismatic.

I, personally, am not. I have nothing to do with any schismatic movements, although I can certainly understand how they ended up there. Furthermore, I don't think most people who are being called "heretics" now are actually heretical at all.

The other thing I really, really want to know is why the people who are calling traditionalists "heretics" don't dare to attack the modernists who are running the Church now - and who are the REAL heretics. Maybe it would take too much courage? Too much faith?

Were the Jesuits followers of someone in schism?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia: As has been explained under the title "Ignatius Loyola", the founder began his self-reform, and the enlistment of followers, entirely prepossessed with the idea of the imitation of Christ, and without any plan for a religious order or purpose of attending to the needs of the days. Unexpectedly prevented from carrying out this idea, he offered his services and those of this followers to the pope, "Christ upon Earth", who at once employed him in such works as were most pressing at the moment.

I don't deny that the Jesuits did the work that needed to be done but they did it within the Church.

"Eucharistic Adoration has not been prohibited"

If I'm not mistaken, a few bishops have prohibited Adoration in their dioceses. I remember reading a quote from a bishop in Florida who basically said that your time would be better spent serving the poor or doing community service or some such, like people who go to Adoration don't do these things. Thank goodness we still have it at the cathedral I attend.

Yeah, actually I remember it too, at least in my parish. It was the constant prodding of girls in my parish, including my own sister, that finally convinced the priest to agree to it. I hope I didn't sound too condescending in my response to your post. I didn't mean any tone by what I said. I just wanted to inform. Thanks for your posts. They are appreciated. :-)

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.