Catechism of the Crisis in the Church
PART 30
The Final Chapter
This selection concludes the “Catechism of the Crisis.” It is a continuation of last month’s questions concerning the Society of St. Pius X, the episcopal consecrations, and relationships with Rome.
98) Didn’t the episcopal consecrations of 1988 cause a schism?
Schism is the rejection in principle of the pope’s authority, and not a simple act of disobedience. But the Society of St. Pius X acknowledges the authority of the pope, and its priests pray for him at every Mass. The episcopal consecrations, which exteriorly constituted an act of disobedience, did not give rise to any schism. Besides, the reasons given above fully justify this apparent disobedience to the pope.
Isn’t it contradictory to protest one’s recognition of the pope’s authority while resisting him?
A man might say to his father “You are not doing right” without telling him “You are no longer my father, I don’t want to have anything more to do with you.” These are two very different attitudes. Schism corresponds only to the second.
Doesn’t the fact of consecrating bishops without papal mandate automatically produce a schism?
An episcopal consecration without papal mandate does not of itself produce a schism. Cardinal Castillo Lara, doctor of Canon Law and president of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Legislative Texts, explained it thus in 1988: “The act of consecrating a bishop without papal mandate is not in itself a schismatic act.”1
Can you cite another authority?
The Count Neri Capponi, professor emeritus of Canon Law at the University of Florence, also declared that an episcopal consecration against the pope’s will does not constitute a schism in and of itself:
He must do something more. For instance, had he set up a hierarchy of his own, then it would have been a schismatic act. The fact is that Archbishop Lefebvre said “I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.” Therefore this act was not, per se, schismatic.”2
Even if it is not per se schismatic, isn’t the consecration of bishops without Rome’s permission always a delict, and doesn’t it always incur ipso facto the penalty of excommunication?
In the Latin Church, the pope has reserved for himself the decision to consecrate bishops since roughly the 11th century. To fight against the schism of the Chinese “Patriotic Church” in the 20th century, Pope Pius XII took the decision to impose excommunication on the consecration of bishops without papal mandate. However important these laws may be, these are ecclesiastical laws and not laws of divine institution. They may, therefore, admit exceptions in extraordinary cases of extreme spiritual necessity. For in the Church, the supreme law is the salvation of souls.3
Is it certain that a case of necessity can thus suspend the application of a law?
The principle by which a case of necessity may suspend the application of a positive law is simple common sense. When a house on a one-way street is burning, the firefighters do not worry too much about the traffic regulation! The end takes precedence over the means. The application of a law is suspended when it would go directly against its end (here: the protection of human life).
Does the principle of state of necessity also apply for religious laws?
The natural law can never admit of exception (it forbids things bad by nature, which can therefore never become good); positive laws–even religious–can, on the contrary, admit of exceptions as Holy Scripture shows.
Are there cases of necessity dispensing from the fulfillment of the law in Holy Scripture?
The principle of case of necessity appears several times in Holy Scripture. Compelled by need, the Machabees decided to use their swords on the Sabbath day rather than allow themselves to be killed without fighting back (I Mac. 2:23-41). The Lord also invokes this principle against the princes of the priests seeking to catch him in a fault; he even cites it as proof (Lk. 14:5; Mac. 2:24-27): “Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fall into a pit and will not immediately draw him out, on the Sabbath day?”
Is the principle of case of necessity affirmed by theologians?
The principle of case of necessity is notably set forth by St. Thomas Aquinas, who cites the traditional adage: “Necessity has no law.”4
Did the crisis currently affecting the Church really necessitate the consecration of bishops without the pope’s authorization?
Every member of the Church has the right to receive from it the doctrine and the sacraments necessary for salvation. If the normal hierarchy (pastor, bishop, etc.) do not fulfill their duty, the faithful find themselves in a state of necessity that allows them to have recourse to any Catholic priest (because of the necessity, this priest then receives from the Church what is called jurisdiction of suppliance, or supplied jurisdiction, in order to minister to the faithful). In the current crisis, supplied jurisdiction empowers traditional priests to baptize, hear the confessions of, marry, etc., Catholics who otherwise would not depend on them. But since the crisis was continuing unabated, and since bishops are necessary for confecting the sacraments of holy orders and confirmation, Archbishop Lefebvre found himself in the necessity of consecrating Catholic bishops to respond to the needs of souls.
Did Archbishop Lefebvre avoid the penalty of excommunication even though he consecrated bishops?
Canon 1323, §4, of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (which substantially incorporates Canon 2205, §2, of the traditional Code), foresees that “[they] are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept”: …“a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience….” Obviously, such was the case of Archbishop Lefebvre.
If Archbishop Lefebvre were mistaken in his judgment that a state of necessity existed, would his excommunication be valid?
The 1983 Code of Canon Law exempts from the penalty of excommunication not only one who actually finds himself in a real state of necessity, but also one who thinks he is in such a state without this conviction being the result of a fault on his part (Canon 1323, §7). Consequently, even should one refuse to acknowledge the real existence of the necessity, it would still be indisputable that Archbishop Lefebvre thought he was in such a state, and that, according to the new Code (in force at the time of the consecrations), he would not incur any penalty.5
Did the official authorities accept this argument of necessity developed by Archbishop Lefebvre?
The current authorities have evidently never publicly recognized the soundness of Archbishop Lefebvre’s argumentation because they claimed to have excommunicated him. But in fact, they often seemed not to believe in the reality of this excommunication–or at least to be divided on the subject.
99) Does the Society of St. Pius X have a false notion of Tradition?
Today the SSPX is often reproached with having a too static concept of Tradition. Conciliar Rome holds up the “living Tradition,”6–the adjective living intended to suggest that Tradition can move, like every living thing. But this is precisely the modernist error of historicism: doctrinal truth can never be reached definitively, but is perceived and expressed differently over the course of several centuries. This error was condemned by Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII.
Is the error of historicism really and truly present at Rome today?
Archbishop Lefebvre often reported that when he would be speaking with Cardinal Ratzinger or other Roman personalities and would quote some condemnation issued by Pius IX or some dogmatic definition of the Council of Trent, he would hear his interlocutor reply: “But Monsignor, we are no longer living at the time of Pius IX; we are not in the era of the Council of Trent…”
Isn’t it normal for traditions to evolve over time?
Tradition (with a capital “T”) ought to be distinguished from traditions. The first is immutable, while the latter can undergo a certain change.
What is Tradition?
Tradition (with a capital “T”), is the Apostolic Tradition, that is to say, the deposit of faith confided once and for all to the Apostles and which the Magisterium [the Church’s Teaching Authority] must transmit and protect till the end of the world.7
Is Tradition absolutely immutable?
The deposit revealed by God and transmitted by Tradition is absolutely immutable since Revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle.8 But this immutable deposit is expressed more and more precisely by the Magisterium, which inventories and classifies it at the same time that it transmits and defends it.
Then the Church’s teaching does evolve?
Rather than speaking of evolution (a very ambiguous word), one should speak of development. Also, it should be understood that this development is homogeneous, that is, without mutation: it is simply the unfolding of what was included from the beginning, which a kind of compression prevented from being fully visible.9
Might one not then correctly say that Tradition is living?
Tradition is living in the sense that the revealed deposit left by the Apostles is not only transmitted as a dead letter in writings, but also by living persons who have the authority to defend it, to show its significance, and to make it lived by faith (which is the function of the Magisterium). But it remains nonetheless that this deposit is itself immutable; truth does not change, and nothing that has once been defined by the Magisterium can then be modified. The expression “living Tradition,” often understood as a moving, evolving Tradition, is thus today particularly dangerous.
What are the Church traditions that co-exist with immutable Tradition?
All the pious practices, the rules of institutes of religious life, methods of apostolate, liturgical or legal laws and customs that are transmitted in the Church without having been directly instituted by God at the time of the Apostles are ecclesiastical traditions, distinct from Tradition in the strict sense.
Can all these ecclesiastical traditions be changed?
Ecclesiastical traditions are not as immutable as revealed Tradition, and, in fact, they slowly evolved over time. But they are the inheritance of the saints and the expression of the wisdom of the Church (which is guided by the Holy Ghost). It would thus be impious and very imprudent to disturb them without a proportionate reason.
But haven’t the “traditionalists” got an excessive and too rigid attachment to ecclesiastical traditions which, after all, are human?
Such a rigid and exaggerated “traditionalism,” which would freeze all exterior forms and refuse any adaptation to contemporary needs, may indeed exist (it can be found among some Eastern schismatics called “Orthodox”). But this was not the attitude of St. Pius X nor of Archbishop Lefebvre, who knew how to intimately unite fidelity to the Church’s past and adaptation to the needs of the day. After all, the antimodernist battle waged by the both of them (and still being waged today by those called “traditionalists”) was not essentially over human traditions by over revealed Tradition, the object of the virtue of faith. The traditionalist resistance is not first and foremost a question of Latin or cassocks or liturgical rubrics; it is well and truly a matter of faith.
How did St. Pius X reconcile fidelity to the past with adaptation to present needs?
Pope St. Pius X, who so severely condemned modernism, was at the same time a great reforming Pope: he reformed the Breviary and Church music; he was the first to prepare a clear and complete Code of Canon Law; and by his two decrees on Communion, he dispelled the final influences of Jansenism. And this is only the list of his major reforms. No pontificate since the Council of Trent had promoted so many reforms as St. Pius X! But these were good reforms, inspired by a truly supernatural zeal, without any contempt for the past, and only aiming at creating the best conditions for the Church’s action in the modern world for the sake of the salvation of souls.
Can Archbishop Lefebvre be compared to St. Pius X on this point?
Archbishop Lefebvre acted exactly like St. Pius X. He cleaved to Tradition with a capital T (which transmits the deposit of faith to us) and loved the Church’s past as much as he knew how to be enterprising and innovative in his pastoral methods. His biography furnishes numerous examples of this.10
Where does the expression “living Tradition” used against the “traditionalists” nowadays come from?
The expression “living Tradition” comes from a document of Vatican II (Dei Verbum 12) and it mentions evolving tradition. From the modernist viewpoint, the role of the magisterium is not to safeguard the deposit of Revelation, but to ensure ecclesial “communion” (in space and time). Fidelity to Tradition does not mean first of all fidelity to a deposit handed down from the Apostles, but rather docility to what the pope, guarantor of unity, says today.
Is this new notion of “living Tradition” to be found in the teaching of Benedict XVI?
The notion of “living Tradition” is omnipresent in Pope Benedict XVI’s teaching. In an allocution of April 26, 2006, for example, he defines the nature of Tradition:
The Church’s apostolic Tradition consists in this transmission of the goods of salvation which, through the power of the Spirit makes the Christian community the permanent actualization of the original communion.
He explains:
Tradition is the communion of the faithful around their legitimate Pastors down through history, a communion that the Holy Spirit nurtures, assuring the connection between the experience of the apostolic faith, lived in the original community of the disciples, and the actual experience of Christ in his Church.11
What is notable in this definition of Tradition?
Under the pretext of emphasizing the living character of Tradition (“Tradition is the living river that links us to the origins, the living river in which the origins are ever present,” the Pope also says), the essential content of this Tradition is left aside: revealed truth, which is immutable.
How should we respond to this new notion of “living Tradition”?
It suffices to answer with St. Paul:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (Gal. 1:8)
100) Wouldn’t it have been possible to continue to go along with Rome?
Simple common sense shows, and experience confirms, that it is currently impossible to fully live and defend the Catholic Faith while being approved by Conciliar Rome. Following upon the episcopal consecrations of 1988, Rome conceded the celebration of the former liturgy to a few communities, but in return these were obliged to recognize the New Mass as a fully legitimate rite and to refrain from any criticism of Vatican II. In particular, they had to accept (or at least not criticize) religious freedom and ecumenism. Such a silence constitutes per se culpable complicity.
Which are the communities that obtained permission to use the traditional liturgy in exchange for their silence about the errors of Vatican II?
The communities having been authorized the use of the traditional liturgy in exchange for their silence about the errors of Vatican II are in particular the Fraternity of St. Peter (issuing from a split with the Society of St. Pius X in 1988), the Institute of Christ the King (founded by Fr. Wach at Gricigliano, near Florence), the Benedictine abbey of Le Barroux (brought round in 1988), the Fraternity of St. Vincent at Chéméré (which abruptly went from sedevacantism to the conciliar cause while Archbishop Lefebvre was dealing with Rome in 1987), the Institute of Opus Mariae (Fr. Vladimir), the Dominican Teaching nuns of Brignoles (founded by Fr. Berto), and finally, most recently, the Society of St. John Marie Vianney of Campos, Brazil (governed by Msgr. Rifan and brought round in 2002). These communities are generally designated by the general name “Ecclesia Dei communities.”
Why do all these communities have the common name “Ecclesia Dei community.”
These communities are designated by the generic name “Ecclesia Dei communities” because most of them are under the Commission of the same name founded at Rome at the time of the 1988 episcopal consecrations for rallying those who left the Society of St. Pius X.
Where does the name “Ecclesia Dei” come from?
The words “Ecclesia Dei” designate the document by which Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated. One might say that all these communities were established as a result of this excommunication and benefit from Archbishop Lefebvre’s heroic act of June 30, 1988. If the founder of Ecône had not first announced (May 29, 1987) and then performed (June 30, 1988) these episcopal consecrations, Conciliar Rome would never have granted the traditional liturgy to all these communities.
Why was Conciliar Rome so bothered by these episcopal consecrations?
Conciliar Rome was bothered by these episcopal consecrations because they assured the survival of Tradition. Until then, it might have been thought that the traditionalist reaction would eventually die out once there were no more traditional bishops to ordain traditional priests. Since Archbishop Lefebvre was quite old, it was only a matter of time, and Conciliar Rome’s entire strategy consisted in trying to gain time. The consecrations of 1988 reversed the situation. Even though they left Archbishop Lefebvre, the Ecclesia Dei communities benefited from it. Rome in effect granted them the use of the traditional liturgy in order to detach them from Archbishop Lefebvre.
Do the Ecclesia Dei communities acknowledge that their prosperity is due to the consecrations of 1988?
Since they are tolerated only insofar as they are publicly separated from him, the Ecclesia Dei communities generally avoid acknowledging their debt to Archbishop Lefebvre. Some laymen enjoy a greater freedom of speech. In 2006, the editor of the Remnant, a newspaper of the Ecclesia Dei community in the United States, publicly recognized that the Society of St. Pius X was like the counterweight that enabled the Ecclesia Dei communities to exist and to develop. Consequently, and very logically, he declared that he did not wish an agreement between Conciliar Rome and the Society of St. Pius X for the time being, for this displacement of the counterweight might weaken the whole traditionalist movement.
Aren’t all these tactical considerations too human?
It is characteristic of Vatican II to have replaced the courageous profession of the Catholic Faith with tactics, diplomacy, and dialogue (the documents on religious freedom and ecumenism are the clearest manifestation of this). Opposite, Archbishop Lefebvre was always motivated by considerations of faith. He only resorted to the consecrations of 1988 in order to continue transmitting the Catholic faith and sacraments. While keeping the same attitude, it is not out of place to note that the faith of Ecône’s founder, who refused to get bogged down in human calculations, ultimately proved to be much more astute than all the maneuvers of the Vatican’s diplomats.
Can the episcopal consecrations of 1988 then be considered to be a great victory of Catholic Tradition?
Yes, the episcopal consecrations of 1988 constitute a great victory for the Church. They saved the traditional Mass. The slow but real progress of the Mass within the Church is an incontestable fruit of the consecrations.
If the victory was won, what prevents the Society from being reconciled with the Roman authorities today?
The consecrations of 1988 contributed to saving Catholic Tradition not only by assuring the transmission of the sacrament of holy orders, and thus of the traditional Mass and sacraments, but also by protecting a small part of the Church’s flock against the conciliar errors. Now, these conciliar errors continue to ravage the Church, and they reign even at Rome. To continue to be protected against them effectively, it is therefore necessary to keep a distance from the Roman authorities. The definitive victory is yet to come.
Wouldn’t it be possible to continue resisting the conciliar errors without being outside the normal chain of command of legitimate Church authorities?
During an epidemic, the most basic prudence imposes the strict separation of the sick from the healthy. A certain communication remains indispensable (for taking care of the sick), but it is limited as much as possible and surrounded with painstaking precautions. The same holds for the situation today: it is impossible to frequent the conciliar authorities on a regular basis without exposing oneself to contracting their errors. The example of the Ecclesia Dei communities furnishes the striking proof.
Have the members of the Ecclesia Dei communities really accepted the errors of Vatican II or have they only kept quiet about them?
Without pretending to judge the internal forum or possible exceptions, it seems that most of the members of the Ecclesia Dei communities have ended, unfortunately, by adhering to the conciliar errors. They began by keeping a prudential silence. Then they had to give more and more tokens of unity. Unawares, they were subjected to the psychological pressure of liberalism, all the more effective the less compulsory it seems. They ended by refraining from thinking otherwise than they spoke and acted. (“One must live the way one thinks or end up thinking the way one lives,” as Paul Bourget said.) In short, they were completely caught in the machinery into which they imprudently put a finger.
Is acceptance of the conciliar errors common to all the Ecclesia Dei communities?
There are undoubtedly nuances, but, in general, all the Ecclesia Dei communities today accept the conciliar errors. When making its peace with Conciliar Rome in July 1988, Le Barroux publicly imposed a condition: “That no doctrinal or liturgical counterpart be required of us, and that silence not be imposed on our antimodernist preaching.”12 But by the following October, one monk had observed “a certain relativizing of the critique of Dignitatis Humanae and Assisi” within the abbey.13 In fact, Le Barroux was even to go so far as to try to justify the errors of Vatican II publicly.14 The Fraternity of St. Peter, which at first claimed to be continuing exactly what the Society of St. Pius X was doing (except for the episcopal consecrations) has similarly slid.
But do the Ecclesia Dei communities stand firm as regards the liturgy?
Far from resisting firmly, the Ecclesia Dei communities have all more or less accepted the new liturgy: Dom Gerard (the father abbot of Le Barroux)15 had to concelebrate the New Mass with the Pope (on April 27, 1995). Fr. Wach (superior of the Institute of Christ the King) had already done as much (on December 21, 199116). Bishop Rifan has also concelebrated the New Mass (on September 8, 2004). The Fraternity of St. Peter had to accept the principle of concelebrating the Holy Thursday chrismal Mass with the bishops of the dioceses where it is established (Rocca di Papa meeting, February 8-12, 200017). The Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer is a little more reserved: they “only” recommend attending the Holy Thursday chrismal Mass in choir and receiving Communion18 (but even this is a liturgical participation and therefore an acceptance of the New Mass).
Surely the Ecclesia Dei communities at least gain a wider field of apostolate in exchange for these compromises?
The situation varies quite a bit from country to country (and in France, from diocese to diocese), but most of the bishops restrict the activities of the Ecclesia Dei communities. Even those bishops who are not too hostile towards them hesitate to welcome them since they fear the reactions of their clergy or the activist laity. Rome for its part fears the reactions of the bishops. The situation of the Ecclesia Dei communities would be precarious in the extreme were it not for the Society of St. Pius X’s counterweight.
Ultimately, what does this situation reveal?
The situation of the Ecclesia Dei communities, which are gradually being constrained to abandon traditional doctrine yet which are only accepted in various dioceses with many restrictions, clearly confirms the existence of “the state of necessity” invoked by Archbishop Lefebvre to justify the consecrations of 1988. Now as then, for those who desire to defend the Catholic Faith to the bitter end, collaboration with Rome is impossible. But this situation will not last indefinitely, as Our Lord promised: “the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Mt. 16:18).
1 La Repubblica, October 7, 1988.
2 Latin Mass Magazine, May-June 1993.
3 Suprema lex, salus animarum. The 1983 Code of Canon Law even cites this adage in its concluding canon (1752).
4 Necessitas legem non habet. St. Thomas Aquinas, III, Q.80, Art. 8.
5 For a more in-depth discussion of this argument, see Sel de la Terre, No.24, pp.50-67. On the legitimacy of the episcopal consecrations of 1988, see the study by Fr. Mura in Nos.4, 5, 7, and 8 of Sel de la Terre as well as the pamphlet by Fr. François Pivert, Schism or Not (1988; Angelus Press, 1995).
6 For example, John Paul II in his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988 (excommunicating Archbishop Lefebvre) denounces “the root” of the traditionalist resistance, which is “an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. He explains that this notion is incomplete “because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, ‘comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit’ (DS 4822).” This notion would, moreover, be contradictory in that it is opposed to the universal magisterium of the Church (on this last point, see Questions 19 and 31 of the Catechism).
7 See above, Question 8.
8 See the 21st condemned proposition of St. Pius X’s Decree Lamentabili. (DS 3421).
9 See above Question 12, as well as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais’s “La Tradition vivante et combattante,” Sel de la Terre, No.30, pp.16-32.
10 See Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre (2002; Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2004), in particular pp. 183-86.
11 General Audience, Wednesday, 26 April 2006; English version online at www.vatican.va/holy_father/ benedict_xvi/ audiences/2006.
12 “Green Light for Le Barroux Monastery: Dom Gerard’s Declaration,” [French] Présent, August 18, 1988.
13 Letter of Fr. Joseph Vannier (former subprior of Le Barroux) to Dom Gerard, Fideliter, January-February 1989, p.14.
14 From 1993, Le Barroux attempted to justify the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (cf. Sel de la Terre, No.9, pp.175-88, on this bad try); Fr. Basil (of the same abbey) set himself to justifying the religious freedom taught by Vatican II in a “monumental” study of 2,960 pages (see Sel de la Terre, No.30, pp.202-7). He recognized that other authors who had so far tried to reconcile DignitatisHumanae with Tradition (Fr. Lucien, Fr. Harrison, Fr. Margerie, Fr. de Saint-Laumer, etc.) had not succeeded, but he thought that he had found the solution. For several years, Fr. Basil’s thesis was presented in Ecclesia Dei circles as the proof that it is possible to reconcile Vatican II with Tradition. Unfortunately, another monk of Le Barroux, Fr. Jehan, published a dissertation in canon law in 2004 proving that Fr. Basil’s thesis suffered from a “fatal” flaw: it radically falsified the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on “Law” (see Sel de la Terre, No.56, pp.180-7). Instead of preaching Christ the King, the “rallied” devote themselves to defending Vatican II in contradictory writings that only add to the general confusion.
15 He entered eternity February 28, 2008. R.I.P.–Ed.
16 Photograph in Sel de la Terre, No.21, p.182.
17 On this important meeting at Rocca di Papa, cf. Jonathan White’s account in Sel de la Terre, No.41, pp.226-33.
18 Sedes Sapientiae, No.68, pp.3-30. Cf. Sel de la Terre, No. 32, pp.217-19.
Current Issue
