Replies

Can. 751 . . . . Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

But "withdrawal of submission" is not the same as disobedience. One can disobey in a particular instance, but not withdraw submission to the papacy. If a faithful Catholic is ordered by the Pope to kill someone innocent, he should disobey--but he is not withdrawing submission to the Pontiff by so doing. The command would have been improper, since it would require disobedience to the law of God which obviously supercedes papal authority.

So also in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre. No pope may command what would have destroyed Catholic Tradition. The office of the papacy exists, in fact, to do the very opposite! So Archbishop Lefebvre was right to disobey and never incurred the offense of schism. He intended no opposition to the papacy itself by his disobedience.

Notice how the charge of schism has never been applied to the Chinese bishops who have likewise disobeyed the Pope and consecrated priests illicitly. Yet the Chinese, unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, actually intend to set up a parallel church and rob legitimate bishops of their jurisdictions. They not only intend this, they broadcast it publicly while Rome pretends to look the other way. In other words, the Chinese have openly declared their schism by their very actions.

The SSPX never did anything remotely comparable. The Archbishop simply disobeyed a papal command he considered in violation of the faith. Even if he was wrong, he acted in good conscience and in a way provided for in Canon Law itself under the provision of the State of Necessity. No parallel church was set up and no one was robbed of any jurisdiction.

If people were honest, they would recognize that history has proven the Archbishop right and the Pope wrong. The Church was, in fact, in crisis--just as Lefebre said. He was right to feel alarm at the destruction of Catholic Tradition--something this Pope seems unworried about. But people are not honest. They would rather deny the obvious than surrender a cherished grudge.

<> Doesn't the SSPX tell their supporters that attending the Missa Normativa does not satisfy the Sunday requirement?<>
Yup. On absolutely solid theological and moral grounds. The Society follows Trent, not Bugnini.

So did the Old Catholics. They followed Trent, not Vatican I. They were, are, and at this point likely always will be,

SCHISMATIC.

So Archbishop Lefebvre was right to disobey and never incurred the offense of schism.

Whatever. You’ve admitted otherwise in the past. He was excommunicated, and he was schismatic. Get over it.

Notice how the charge of schism has never been applied to the Chinese bishops who have likewise disobeyed the Pope and consecrated priests illicitly.

It depends on the Bishop. As we’ve discussed before, this situation is a great deal more complex than your simplification.

patent +AMDG