Replies

If you will trace the origin of the so-called SSPX excommunication, you will discover it never happened. The claim the bishops of the SSPX were excommunicated has become a campaign of disinformation that is endlessly repeated to demonize the SSPX. But since there was no excommunication in the first place, there was no schism.

1. Most people believe the Pope excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. But the Pope only published a letter stating the excommunication had occurred latae sententiae--that is to say, automatically, according to Canon Law. He believed this had occurred because of the Archbishop's disobedience in consecrating bishops against the wishes of the Pontiff.

2. But Canon Law qualifies such excommunication. It provides an important exception. If there is a "state of necessity," the subject may disobey his superior, even the pope, without incurring any penalty. What's more, even if the subject were mistaken about this state of emergency, as long as he evoked the canon believing in good conscience there was such a state, he incurred no penalty.

3. There can be no doubt the Archbishop believed he was forced to disobey the Pontiff because of the crisis in the Church which threatened to destroy the old Mass and Catholic Tradition itself. The Pontiff had forbidden any consecration of traditional priests. The Archbishop was very old and ill--he knew if he didn't consecrate, the traditional priesthood itself would disappear. Catholic Tradition had already been destroyed in every other part of the Church. He was the sole holdout defending the ancient liturgy as it had been handed-down from apostolic times. He therefore evoked the canon in good conscience.

4. Those who say if the Pope says in his letter the Archbishop and his bishops were excommunicated, they are excommunicated, regardless of what Canon Law says, do not understand what Canon Law is. It is the Pope's law. So you have the phenomenon of a papal Canon Law opposed by a papal letter. There can be no doubt that Canon Law has precedence over a papal letter. Hence, there was no excommunication.

5. Those who argue it was for the Pope to decide whether an emergency existed in the Church or not, do not understand the canon involved. This is because even if the Archbishop mistakenly believed there was a crisis in the Church, as long as he acted in good conscience, there was no penalty incurred.

6. But, in fact, there WAS an emergency in the Church. Even Paul VI spoke of the smoke of Satan having entered the sanctuary of the Catholic Church. He complained publicly about the Church's own auto-demolition of its own doctrines and traditions. Scandals were exploding everywhere left and right. The Archbishop acted therefore prudently, desirous to preclude further destruction.

7. But even if there were not an emergency, the Archbishop believed there was. He therefore properly evoked the canon in good conscience--and not even a pope can get inside another man's soul to determine whether that act of conscience were insincerely evoked. But, in fact, we know it was sincere. We know this because long before the Archbishop evoked the canon, he had complained about the destruction in the Church and the protestantizing of its Mass. He saw the Church in a state of emergency and said so frequently--long before his act of disobedience.

8. Finally, it should be remembered that disobedience is permissible if a command is given by a superior to an inferior that would result in harm to the Church. This has been a perennial teaching of the Church that has been confirmed by its most eminent doctors of theology, including Thomas Aquinas and Robert Bellarmine. The Archbishop acted wisely and prudently--which is why it is Rome who is now making the overtures for the "regularization" of the SSPX, rather than the Society itself.