Replies

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.

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

So do the members of SSPX. The Pope's command that Archbishop Lefebvre not consecrate bishops was not only imprudent and unjust, it was improper and transcended his authority. No one, not even a pope, may command anyone to do evil and violate the law of God. The destruction of Traditional Catholicism to the Archbishop was unthinkable for this reason and so the Pope's command needed to be disobeyed. Not only this, but Lefebvre disobeyed under a loophole provided by canon law itself--by declaring a State of Necessity, or crisis. This was a legitimate plea and many of Rome's finest canon lawyers recognize the legitimacy of the Archbishop's use of this clause. Nor was the Archbishop in any way in schism. Not all disobedience is schismatic, after all, and certainly not the Archbishop's. He set up no parallel church or jurisdiction and did not deny the primacy of the Pope. He simply disobeyed.

At that time, remember, there was NO traditionalism anywhere in the Church, he was the only holdout. Traditional Catholicism would have been effectively destroyed, had it not been for the good Archbishop. The Pope granted the Indult only AFTER Lefebvre's refusal, not before, and no one who knows the background to the dispute believes it was intended to do anything but split the Society. Instead the Indult backfired and traditionalism grew exponentially in a single decade and in such a way that it was greatly offensive to modernists. This is why, instead of winning praise for its many successes under the Indult, the Fraternity of St. Peter was actually punished a year and a half ago, its superior general fired and its seminary theologians dismissed as well, all on phony charges of their having a "schismatic mentality". This is the same Holy See that allows liberal theologians to dissent at will and even allows outright apostates and actively gay bishops to flourish. It's clear by such swift action against the Fraternity that Rome never wanted Tradition to succeed, it still will do all it can to discourage Traditional Catholicism. In lieu of this, it wants to isolate its influence, corral its adherents into a sort of zoo, make it an oddity rarely permitted anywhere--no matter what Ecclesia Dei Afflicta might say about the a wide and generous application of the Indult.

So the short answer is that the SSPX was born out of a refusal to destroy Catholic tradition. That is not evil, that is good. The command not to consecrate bishops was intended to destroy the Society. Without traditional bishops no traditional priests could have been ordained. Both the Archbishop and the Pope knew this. The Pope applied the squeeze, but the Archbishop remained steadfast to his everlasting credit. He saved traditional Catholicism in the Church and preserved the true faith.