No Schism!

This is in defense of French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Emeritus Bishop of Tulle in France and Titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia, and Founder in 1970 of the now widely known International Priestly Society of Saint Pius X with its main seminary in Ecône, Switzerland.

He was the subject of Rev. Fr. Miguel A. Bernad's quite slanted "Random" column of The Philippine Star issue of September 23, 1989.

I find Fr. Bernad's aforesaid column insulting the intelligence of knowledgeable Catholics and most unfair and uncharitable, indeed, to Archbishop Lefebvre, a saintly Catholic prelate with a "magnificent career,"¹ who has done... and still is doing... more than anybody else in the Church in this century in upholding the true Catholic Faith before, during and even after Vatican II.

As aptly observed by world-renowned Michael Davies, an internationally recognized writer on the "painful afflictions" of the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965): "God has reserved for Archbishop Lefebvre what is possibly the most important role assigned to any prelate during this century: the task of preserving the Catholic priesthood during this period of universal apostasy."²

And now, my comments on Fr. Bernad's thesis: "Lefebvre's schism."

To begin with, Archbishop Lefebvre has NOT fallen into any schism. His consecration of four bishops on June 30, 1988, without Papal approval, for which he was unceremoniously excommunicated on July 1, 1988, cannot under any process of theological reasoning be considered as a "schismatic act."

Why? Because, theologically speaking, there is "schism" only when a Catholic denies or rejects or refuses to "accept the EXISTENCE of legitimate authority in the Church,"³ i.e., Papal authority. The best example of this was "Martin Luther's rejection of the Papacy "⁴ and his establishment of the Protestant Church separate and distinct from the Catholic Church.

In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, however, he never rejected—on the contrary, he has always subjected himself to—the authority of the Pope and the Holy See. As a matter of documented fact, in his formal statement anent his questioned episcopal consecration on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre, loud and clear, said: "We confirm our adherence and subjection to the Holy See."⁵ And in his letter to the four prospective bishops, His Grace, Archbishop Lefebvre, implored them "to remain attached to the See of Peter and the Roman Church, mother and mistress to all churches."⁶

No wonder, in a radio interview on the very same day of the episcopal consecration, Canon lawyer and Professor Geringer of the Faculty of Theology, University of Munich, opined that "with the episcopal consecration, Archbishop Lefebvre was by NO means creating a "SCHISM,"⁷ a view shared by Fr. Patrick Valdrini, Dean of the faculty of Canon Law, Catholic Institute of Paris, who further argued "that since Archbishop Lefebvre had not given the consecrated bishops any jurisdiction or territory, the consecration did NOT constitute an act of schism."⁸ Even "Cardinal Castillo Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, expressed the same idea."⁹

True, Archbishop Lefebvre defied Papal authority when, in spite of warnings given to him by the Vatican not to proceed with the episcopal consecration, he still did it. But his act of defiance did not constitute "schism"; it was merely "disobedience" which was "meritorious" because his act was for the good of the Church—the preservation of the Catholic priesthood and the traditional rite of Mass, the Tridentine Mass—and, therefore, not punishable at all, especially by excommunication which is a heavy penalty very, very seldom imposed by the Church.

The reason for this is that, under Catholic theology, "a Catholic has not simply the right but the duty to DISOBEY"¹⁰ his superiors, including the Pope, who "cannot destroy but can only build"¹¹ the Church, as eloquently pointed out by Bishop Grosseteste in his celebrated "refusal to obey Pope Innocent IV"¹² who ordered the Bishop "to appoint the Pope's nephew as a canon of Lincoln Cathedral... as a means of obtaining revenue for his relatives."¹³

As stressed by Cardinal Newman, "if a man is sincerely convinced that what his superior commands is displeasing to God, he is not bound to OBEY."¹⁴ "The word 'superior' certainly includes the Pope."¹⁵ This is in line with the Biblical injunction: "We ought to OBEY God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Thus, when "to obey the Pope would be to disobey God,"¹⁶ then "disobeying a Papal command "¹⁷ would be the right action to take because "the right to resist the Pope has a solid foundation in Catholic theology."¹⁸

Consequently, the Vatican's crucifixion of Archbishop Lefebvre at the altar of excommunication on July 1, 1988, on the patently erroneous assumption that he committed "a schismatic act" by consecrating four bishops on June 30, 1988, "without Pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff,"¹⁹ constitutes an unlawful exercise and grave abuse of Papal power or authority which cries to the high heavens for rectification.

Many ecclesiastical authorities do not seem to know the theological "distinction between schism and disobedience," a distinction clearly discussed by Fr. Congar in the Dictionnaire de Theologia Catholique, thus: "Schism involves a refusal to accept the EXISTENCE of legitimate authority in the Church,"²⁰ while "disobedience" involves merely "the refusal to accept a decision of that authority in a particular instance,"²¹ like the Vatican's command for Archbishop Lefebvre to desist from performing the episcopal consecration, which command he sincerely believes—on unassailable theological grounds—to be an unlawful EXERCISE and grave abuse of Papal power or authority so that it was his "right," even "duty," to resist and disobey the same.

The aforesaid very fundamental distinction in Catholic theology between "schism" and "disobedience" appears to have been lost on Fr. Bernad and Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, who issued the decree of Lefebvre's excommunication.²²

But what is quite surprising is that even Pope John Paul II himself seems to have confused "disobedience" with "schism" because in his motu proprio Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei"²³ of July 2, 1988, he at first correctly referred to Lefebvre's episcopal consecration as an "act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff." However, the Holy Father later said that "such disobedience constitutes a schismatic act," thereby betraying his confusion, worsened by his faulty conclusion that "such disobedience implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy."

This conclusion flies in the face of documented facts already adverted to in the preceding pages hereof and bespeaks of bad faith of those really responsible for Lefebvre's utterly unwarranted excommunication and the incompetence of the Vatican Secretariat preparing Papal documents.

At this juncture, it should be stated that "a Pope is not infallible in his laws, nor in his commands, nor in his acts of State, nor in his administration, nor in his policy,"²⁴ according to John Henry Cardinal Newman.

Therefore, Pope John Paul II's erroneous or confused view of the true nature of Archbishop Lefebvre's episcopal consecration is not binding on anyone, least of all on Archbishop Lefebvre, whose "disobedience was dictated by the pressing need of preserving the traditional Roman rite of the Mass (The Tridentine Mass) in accordance precisely with the "wishes" of our "holy Mother Church" not only "to preserve in the future all lawfully acknowledged rites" but also "to foster them in every way,"²⁵ and, in the process, to save the Catholic Church from "a real disintegration which is taking place within,"²⁶ as candidly admitted by Valerian Cardinal Gracias, and even confirmed by no less than Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who said that Cardinal Gracias "too accurately described" the Church today as in "real disintegration."²⁷

That this is, indeed, the case was also observed by outstanding French theologian and liturgist, Fr. Louis Bouyer, who was an expert adviser at the Second Vatican Council. Let us listen to his frank remark: "Unless we are blind, we must even state bluntly that what we see looks less like the hoped-for regeneration of Catholicism than its accelerated decomposition."²⁸

Is it any wonder then that Archbishop Lefebvre just ignored his so-called excommunication and considered it absolutely "worthless"?²⁹

If you want to know who the real SCHISMATICS are and their diabolical reasons, watch for my next article and you will get the shock of your life.

1. "Le Drame d'Ecône" (Sion, 1976), p. 16.

2. Michael Davies: "Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre", Vol. I, First Edition, August, 1979, p. 11

3. Fr. Yves Congar, O.P., "Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique," XIV, 1303, col. 2.

4. Ibid.

5. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, The Episcopal Consecration of 30 June 1988, London, 1989, p. 40

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid., citing interview in Valeurs Actuelles, Paris, 4 July 1988, and in L'Homme Nouveau, Paris, 17 July 1988.

9. Ibid., citing "Republica" 08-07-88

10. Footnote 2, p. 415

11. Ibid., p. 406

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid, p. 404

14. Footnote 2, p. 415.

15. Ibid.

16. Footnote 2, p. 407

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid., p. 415

19."Decree of Excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre", published in the Catholic Book Review Quarterly, Fourth Quarter 1988, p.7, a publication of the Doctrinal Research Foundation, Inc. for the Asian Catholic Bookfair, Inc. Jaime L. Cardinal Sin, Chairman.

20. Footnote 2, p. 403

21. Ibid., pp. 403-404

22. Footnote 19

23. Footnote 19, Catholic Book Review Quarterly, Fourth Quarter 1988, p. 8, supra.

24. Footnote 14 (Footnote 2, p. 407).

25. Vatican II Document, "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy", no. 4.

26. Fr. Paul Leonard, B.Ph., S.T.B., M. Div., "John Paul II Says: 'Let Catholics Have the Tridentine Mass", The Fatima Crusader, June-July, 1989, pp. 27-30.

27. Ibid., p. 29

28. Ibid.

29. Philippine Daily INQUIRER, July 1, 1988.