The Excommunication of the Followers of Archbishop Lefebvre

1 . From the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia dei" of 2nd July 1988 and from the Decree "Dominus Marcellus Lefebvre" of the Congregation for Bishops, of 1st July 1988, it appears above all that the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre was declared in immediate reaction to the episcopal ordinations conferred on 30th June 1988 without pontifical mandate (cf CIC, Can. 1382). All the same it also appears clear from the aforementioned documents that such a most grave act of disobedience formed the consummation of a progressive global situation of a schismatic character.

2. In effect no. 4. of the Motu Proprio explains the nature of the "doctrinal root of this schismatic act," and no. 5. c) warns that a "formal adherence to the schism" (by which one must understand "the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre") would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church (CIC, can. 1364 para.1). Also the decree of the Congregation for Bishops makes explicit reference to the "schismatic nature" of the aforesaid episcopal ordinations and mentions the most grave penalty of excommunication which adherence "to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre" would bring with it.

3. Unfortunately, the schismatic act which gave rise to the Motu Proprio and the Decree did no more than draw to a conclusion, in a particularly visible and unequivocal manner — with a most grave formal act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff — a process of distancing from hierarchical communion. As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.

4. One cannot furnish any judgement on the argumentation of Murray's thesis (see below) because it is not known, and the two articles which refer to it appear confused. However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances. (cf CIC, can. 1323) As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of "serving" the church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.

5. As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who "adhere formally" to the said schismatic movement. Even if the question of the exact import of the notion of "formal adherence to the schism" would be a matter for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this pontifical Council that such formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements:

a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the magisterium of the Church),

b) the other of an external character, consisting in the externalising of this option, the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (one is dealing however with a sign that is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit).

6. In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above (n.5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence.

7. On the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one's own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice the result can be that it is more difficult to judge their situation. One must take account above all of the person's intentions, and the putting into practice of this internal disposition. For this reason the various situations are going to be judged case by case, in the competent forums both internal and external.

8. All the same, it will always be necessary to distinguish between the moral question on the existence or not of the sin of schism and the juridical-penal question on the existence of the delict of schism, and its consequent sanction. In this latter case the dispositions of Book V1 of the Code of Canon Law (including Cann.1323-1324) will be applied.

9. It does not seem advisable to make more precise the requirements for the delict of schism (but one would need to ask the competent Dicastery, cf. Ap. Const. "Pastor Bonus", art 52). One might risk creating more problems by means of rigid norms of a penal kind which would not cover every case, leaving uncovered cases of substantial schism, or having regard to external behaviour which is not always subjectively schismatic.

10. Always from the pastoral point of view it would also seem opportune to recommend once again to sacred pastors all the norms of the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" with which the solicitude of the Vicar of Christ encouraged to dialogue and has provided the supernatural and human means necessary to facilitate the return of the Lefebvrians to full ecclesial communion.

Comment — Although dated August 1996, presumably its publication early in 1998 was in view, at least in part, of the forthcoming tenth anniversary of the Consecrations and the issuing of the Motu Proprio and Decree.

While initiatives taken under their auspices have had a positive impact, with a number of new religious institutes, and flourishing vocations, now in full communion with the Holy See, and increasingly welcomed by diocesan bishops in some parts of the world, it is also true that there are many places where little attention has been given to its implementation.

Moreover while the Lefebvrist movement has had some set backs, the number of adherents has not diminished significantly. A recent book to mark twenty five years of the Society of St Pius X in Britain (R.Warwick, The Living Flame, London 1997) indicates that there are some twenty Lefebvrist church buildings in Great Britain at present, with some 2000 regular worshippers. In the United States the situation is more extensive and much more varied, with many independent priests and chapels, as well as more extremely sedevacantist groups such as the Society of St Pius X (sic - Ed. note) and the Mount St Michael Community.

The question of apostolic succession has also become more complex. The fissiparous nature of such groups means that not all their orders are derived from Archbishop Lefebvre. Some, having departed from the Society of St Pius X, have obtained orders or episcopal consecration from Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, or his successors, Bishop Alfred Mendez (formerly of Arecibo), or from Old Catholic and similar sources. For details of the American scene one should consult M. Cuneo. The Smoke of Satan, New York 1997, a book which is informative if irritatingly discursive.

Supporters of the Society of St Pius X frequently distribute leaflets containing highly selective or tendentious quotations. One, for example, claims that the Society is neither schismatic nor excommunicated. Generally the line of argument is that since Archbishop Lefebvre was not schismatic, he was not excommunicated, and a fortiori neither were any of his followers.

The leaflet quotes Cardinal Castillo Lara to the effect that consecrating a bishop without the Pope's permission is not in itself a schismatic act. It continues that merely to consecrate bishops, without intending to set up an alternative hierarchy in the jurisdictional sense is not an act of schism. Several canonists are quoted as endorsing these views, Count Neri Capponi, an advocate accredited to the Signatura, Professor Geringer of Munich University, Fr. Patrick Valdini, Professor of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris, and Fr. Gerald Murray who presented his thesis on the subject at the Gregorian University.

Reference is also made to the decision of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, dated 28th June 1993, that the excommunication imposed on followers of Archbishop Lefebvre on 1st May 1991 by Bishop Ferraio of Hawaii was invalid since there had been no schismatic acts in the strict sense. One cannot be certain as to the accuracy of such quotations, at least in terms of completeness. For example the decree mentioned added a rider that there were other grounds on which the Bishop could take action.

I am not aware whether Fr.Murray's thesis has been published, but it would appear that the Council had been sent not the thesis but two articles published in the Fall issue of "Latin Mass" magazine. The first was an interview with Fr .Murray conducted by Roger McCaffrey (pp.50-55). The second was a summary of the thesis prepared by Steven Terenzio (pp.55-61).

Murray's first line of argument appears to be that the lay followers of Society of St Pius X do not incur the excommunication, because only an external violation of a law or precept can be subject to a canonical penalty (art.cit. p.56), and there must be grave imputability. The warnings contained in the Motu Proprio give no specific indications as to what constitutes "adherence," making liability to penalty at least open to doubt.

A second line of argument is that the Archbishop denied schism, and that simple disobedience does not constitute schism, only systematic and habitual refusal of dependence.

A third line of argument is that an erroneous view that necessity justified his action would have made his action culpable, but removed canonical malice and therefore liability to excommunication (canon 1323 7o). His argument in effect is that the provisions of the 1983 Code are so exigent for imputability to be proved and a penalty incurred, that the Archbishop and his followers escape by virtue of the very postconciliar legislation they so oppose.

"On the other hand, Canon 209 prescribes: 'Para. 1. Christ's faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions. Para.2 They are to carry out with great diligence their responsibilities towards both the universal Church and the particular Church to which by law they belong.' It is obvious that a lay person who exclusively frequents chapels directed by suspended priests of the Society of St Pius X, which operate without the permission of either the local or the universal Church, is not, in fact, at the very least, living in external communion with the Church. Thus we have the anomalous situation of a group of faithful who are in fact in some real way living apart from real communion with the Church, but who are almost certainly not subject to the canonical penalties intended to discourage and punish such behaviour." (cited from Terenzio, art. cit. p.61).

The Note was clearly prepared as a reply to the arguments of this kind (cf. n.4). The suggestion that there might be any doubt cast upon the excommunication declared by the Congregation for Bishops in the case of the Archbishop and those he consecrated is given short shrift.

It might be worth remembering that the penalty was raised to excommunication because of the creation of the Patriotic Catholic Association in China, and consecration of Bishops without a mandate. The 1917 Code (canon 2370) had provided only for suspension.

Historically the situation had arisen in Latin America when difficult travel conditions had delayed the arrival of the mandate, and a planned consecration had gone ahead without it, but with no schismatic intent. Here the situation was quite different, and although the intention might not have been to set up an alternative jurisdiction, only to provide for the sacraments, de facto that is what was already happening. Moreover since the protocol originally signed by Archbishop Lefebvre actually provided for the consecration of one Bishop, necessity could hardly be argued.

The Note then turns to those whose excommunication has not been declared; the clergy and faithful associated with the Society of St Pius X. The Council prescind from any decision that might be made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but sets out two general legal criteria that would be required for "formal adherence."

The first is an internal criterion, one of intention. An external violation of a law cannot incur a penalty where there is inculpable ignorance, inadvertence or error with regard to violating the law (can. 1323 2°). Equally the penalty must be reduced where the person was unaware of the penalty, through no fault of their own, or lacked full imputability (can. 1324 9° & 10°). There is a requirement of schismatic intention, that is freely and consciously accepting the substance of the schism, that is putting one's personal choice above obedience to the Pope. Generally, this will be characterised by an habitual stance contrary to the Magisterium of the Church.

The second criterion is external, the external effect given to this choice. The most obvious sign of this is to attend solely and exclusively those celebrations conducted by followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, and eschewing those of the mainstream Church, not only local Bishop and clergy, but, for example, those legitimately using the 1962 liturgical books, such as the Fraternity of St Peter.

To a degree the Council is accepting the argumentation presented by Fr.Murray in that an external violation of the law is required not simply a supposed internal attitude of mind, and that more is required subjectively than attendance even habitually at Lefebvrist centres or celebrations. The latter is compatible with an internal disposition which still accepts the authority of the Pope. However, it parts company with him in that it argues that the disobedience involved in aligning oneself with the Lefebvrists itself implies a schismatic intention, even though one might not formally reject the authority of the Pope or local Bishop. Such a position is logically inconsistent, and one must ask what is the prevalent intention in a particular case.

The Note points out that one must distinguish between the moral question of the sin of schism, and the legal question of a delict and its imputability. Once there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed until it appears otherwise (can. 1321 para 3). The onus is on the person to establish elements removing or reducing imputability. In the internal forum there is no such presumption. This means that in the case of lay people, their position will often be difficult to discern. In this situation one must have a mind to the liberty guaranteed by canon 18. In the case of clergy, their external involvement in the ministry in the ambit of the schismatic movement is itself sufficient evidence that both internal and external criteria for formal adherence have been fulfilled. However, such a censure is undeclared and therefore subject to the limits mentioned in canons 1331 and 1335.

While the document speaks of Lefebvrists, it does not refer by name to the Society of St Pius X, and so the criteria should be applied also to other similar groups that are associated with the Archbishop's followers, religious communities, the dissident clergy of the Diocese of Campos in Brazil, but also others, such as those mentioned above, who hold similar positions, even though their hierarchs may not have been declared excommunicated.

It does not apply to those who belong to groups whose position has been regularised by the Commission Ecclesia Dei, or established by the authority of the local Bishop of Scranton on 24th May 1998.

The position of 'freelance' clerics, retired or otherwise released from their Diocese, but not subject to any other penalty, who are operating chapels without reference to the local Bishop, or in defiance of his known wishes would have to be judged on their individual merits. In some cases it may be the Bishop rather than the cleric who is not open to dialogue about regularising their situation in accordance with the provisions of the Motu Proprio. The same may be true for groups of lay people seeking spiritual provision in the form of chaplaincy, and who have availed of the services of a priest or bishop whose situation is irregular.

While there might be a direct approach to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the latter is reluctant to force Bishops' hands and prefers to work by persuasion.

Fr. Michael Brown, Assistant Judicial Vicar, Hexham & Newcastle Diocesan Tribunal

"Formal adherence" is always the sticking point for me. It seems clear that SSPX priests qualify, but at what level do the laity? I agree with many of Lefebvre's arguments and criticism (and even consider some of his positions too liberal) but his decision to consecrate bishops, and his priests' assuming sacramental jurisdiction, I cannot support and it weakens the position of traditionalists when they also support such tactics. Even if the Pope and bishops are scandalously liberal, even if the Roman Liturgy was replaced with a "banal on-the-spot product" that is an embarassment to all sensible Catholics, there are some things that can't be done. It all boils down to whether the ends justify the means. Liberals can't be expected to know any better, but traditionalists should.

Fr. Gerald Murray who presented his thesis on the subject at the Gregorian University. ... I am not aware whether Fr.Murray's thesis has been published, but it would appear that the Council had been sent not the thesis but two articles published in the Fall issue of "Latin Mass" magazine. The first was an interview with Fr. Murray conducted by Roger McCaffrey (pp.50-55). The second was a summary of the thesis prepared by Steven Terenzio (pp.55-61).

Fr. Murray has since admitted to at least one serious flaw in the reasoning he employed in this thesis, and has requested that it not be reproduced, and that his name and work not be used to argue that the SSPX is not schismatic. The Latin Mass Magazine respects his request and has not issued reprints when they are requested.

1. It is not an excommunicable offense to consecrate a bishop without a papal mandate - it is one to install or appoint one as an Ordinary, i.e the rival head of a diocese.

There are two seperate functions and decrees: THE MANDATUM of episcopal consecration versus the CANONICAL APPOINTMENT of an Ordinary or head of a diocese. Please consider the many bishops who are consecrated as such and then serve as auxiliary bishops assisting an Ordinary, and hence only have titular sees.

Are the apostates falsely occupying the Vatican that imbecilic, devious and despicable, not to even consider the difference: OF COURSE!!!

"Decree concerning the Consecration of a Bishop without Canonical Appointment.[i.e APPOINTMENT AS ORDINARY OF A DIOCESE!!]

"The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, in virtue of a special faculty established for it by the Supreme Pontiff, publishes the following Decree:"

"A Bishop, of whatever rite or dignity, who consecrates as a Bishop someone who is neither nominated by the Holy See nor expressly confirmed by that same See, and he who receives consecration, even if coerced by grave fear (c.229, §3, 3), incur ipso facto [automatically] excommunication most especially reserved to the Apostolic See."

"This Decree takes effect from the date of its promulgation."

2. The excommunication was only instituted in 1951, & referenced in an encyclical in 1958, by Pope Pius XII to deal with the puppet church and puppet ordinaries being set up in Communist China by Mao Tse Tung.

Ad Apostolorum Principis, His Holiness Pope Pius XII, Encyclical on Communism and the Church in China, June 29, 1958

"47. From what We have said, it follows that no authority whatsoever, save that which is proper to the Supreme Pastor, can render void the canonical appointment granted to any bishop; that no person or group, whether of priests or of laymen, can claim the right of nominating bishops; that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See.[18]"

[18. Canon 953.]

"48. Consequently, if consecration of this kind is being done contrary to all right and law, and by this crime the unity of the Church is being seriously attacked, an excommunication reserved specialissimo modo to the Apostolic See has been established which is automatically incurred by the consecrator and by anyone who has received consecration irresponsibly conferred.[19]"

[19. Decree of Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, April 9, 1951: AAS 43 (1951) pp. 217-18.]

3. It has thus only been applied, incorrectly and unjustly, to those true Catholic bishops, consecrating and being consecrated, to preserve and continue the Roman Catholic Church, Her Faith, and Her Mass and to provide sacraments to the faithful. These bishops, even though they constitute the true Church, have not set up their own Sees, dioceses, or claim jurisdiction.

It has not been applied by the apostates falsely occupying the Vatican to any of those to whom it was intended to apply - the Commie Chinese puppet church. Instead it and they are embraced by the "Vatican" and its seminarians attend diocesan seminaries in the United States and function as priests under our domestic heresiarchs.

4. The mind and intent of the legislator, Pope Pius XII, as to the purpose of this law, has never once been considered or consulted. If so, and if it was needed at all, the princile of Epikeia would most readily apply as justification by the true bishops for the Church to continue, persevere and provide for the spiritual needs of Her sheep.

5. Abp. Lefebvre and the other bishops involved were never permitted their right to formal canonical proceedings when the notification of latae sententiae excommunication was made, which was absurd to even consider, in which they could cite in formal proceedings and according to canonical statutes the reasons for their actions.

6. No true, i.e "traditional" Catholic bishop was ever formally excommunicated by the "Vatican" apostates, let alone excommunicated as "vitandus". They merely stated that a latae sententiae excommunication had been incurred under the provisions of ecclesiastical statute.

7. As for Abp. Ngo Dinh Thuc, he had been granted an extraordinary mandate by Pope Pius XI, reiterated by Pope Pius XII, to consecrate and install whomever he chose to be elevated to the episcopacy. This was identical to that granted by Pope Pius XI to the Jesuit Fr. Hrbigny [sp] himself secretly consecrated , to consecrate and install bishops to serve the Church and Her faithful in the Soviet Union.

This was mandate bestowed upon Abp. Thuc was never rescinded and never even mentioned in the invalid declaration of latae sententiae excommunication leveled against him by the apostates falsely occupying the Vatican.

I am sick and tired of playing patty-cake with the "sesame street scholars" who can't even spell "K A T", yet solemnly decree that all must serve and obey satan if satan pretends to usurp authority and who also fail to grasp the concept of natural law, let alone DIVINE LAW, superceding any dictate of even a legitimate and valid prelate, let alone invalid heretical ones.

Have fun with 'em. If you want further references let me know.

1. It is not an excommunicable offense to consecrate a bishop without a papal mandate - it is one to install or appoint one as an Ordinary, i.e the rival head of a diocese.

Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

47. From what We have said, it follows...that no one can lawfully confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the Apostolic See. (Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis)

Extra Societatem Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X Nulla Salus? The Catholic Church teaches:

So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,[55] cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion."[56] (Pastor Aeternus cap. 4 §2)

A judgment of the Supreme Pontiff cannot be examined by any court.

A declaration that a latae sententiae excommunication has been incurred is a perfectly valid way of declaring penalties.

Back in the 1970s in a college psychology class, a professor had us play a game. I thought it was pretty dumb at the time, and have ever since, but it has applicability here.

It involved two "teams" that would meet to "trade" things, and was very freeform. At a point, though, one side got the power to make the rules.

Well, I was bored -- and unscrupulous -- so I pressured my side into making manifestly unfair rules that ended the game quickly in our favor. Essentially, I insisted on a rule that the other "team" had to give us their things, and had no recourse to appeal.

Everybody thought I was terrible for acting that way. Even the people on my "team" who let me do it. The professor was giving me that "Hmmm" stinkeye.

My rules offended their God-given sense of fairness and justice.

That's how I feel about the argument that, because the Pope is the Pope, whatever he says goes, no matter what. Even if he orders us to become child-molesting cannibals, there is no appeal.

That is not what Catholicism teaches, and that's not what the doctors of the Church teach. Aquinas himself argues that we have a duty to refuse a wrongful order.

A day will come when the Modernist Heresy is finally defeated, and Lefebre's name will take its place alongside Athanasius's. If no one had had the courage and conviction to rebel against the Vatican's attempt to eradicate the Tridentine Mass, it would have been lost to us forever.

SSPX was out to save the Tridentine. The Vatican was out to destroy the SSPX, and pulled a classic bait and switch.

They got Lefebre to agree to appointing only one bishop to carry on after him, then they jumped up and said, "Ha, ha, gotcha. We get to make the rules, and the rule is that we get to pick the bishop. Let's see, now, should it be Weakland, or Mahoney, or...wait, here's a guy who hates the Tridentine Mass, rejects the Resurrection, and rapes at least one altar boy every day. Perfect. Bye bye, SSPX."

Lefebre rightly rebelled against that despicable injustice, so the Vatican said, "Well, we still get to make the rules, so we declare that you have excommunicated yourself, and your order is schismatic."

Anyone whose sense of justice is not offended by that abuse of power needs to have his moral compass boxed.

People need to realize that "Smoke of Satan" is not a figure of speech. Some Cardinals and Bishops are deeply, deeply evil people, enemies of the Church, and enemies of God.

"the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter"

Where is this "formal declaration" by the Pope? It never happened. He hid behind the latae sententiae assumption--though this depended entirely on the moral disposition of the Archbishop and not the Pope. And the reason he hid behind this technicality was because he could not risk exposure of his own motives. This would have certainly happened had he set up a papal tribunal which would have allowed Archbishop Lefebvre the right to defend himself. The Pontiff couldn't risk this because it would have exposed the Archbishop's innocence and the papal animus against Catholic Tradition.

In other words, this whole article is the usual propaganda, using fancy expressions to disguise an absence of substance. It is laughable to suppose the Motu Proprio was this "formal declaration." There was nothing formal about it. Its proper subject was the Indult, not any supposed excommunication. Furthermore, this letter actually contradicts the Pope's own Canon Law which provided appropriate exceptions for disobedience (canons 1323 and 1324) which the Archbishop evoked. There was never any excommunication, in other words, whatever the Supreme Pontiff might have said in a letter.

This is certain because the Pope's Canon Law supercedes as an authority any letter signed by the Pope, no matter what it says. In other words, the Pope openly contradicted his own Canon Law--and in this case the law has greater authority than his own carelessly-written letter.So you can post these fulminous hit-pieces till the cows come home, it will not make either the SSPX or those who defend the Society any less Catholic. Zero plus zero equals zero. --Not that it will stop the haters--those on the left who despise Tradition and glory in the word "schismatic"--as if they knew what it meant. They will continue to hurl their slanders. So be it--they are still one hundred per cent wrong.

heretical "1983 Code of Canon Law" which permits reception of the Eucharist by non-catholics.

3. Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.

Now schism is grave matter, and thus those who are culpable of schism are not properly disposed. But those who are outside the Church because of invincible ignorance are, according to St. Pius X, "united to the soul of the Church":

If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation (St. Pius X Catechism)

Now if he is united to the soul of the Church, why is it heretical to give such a man the Sacraments?

SSPX was out to save the Tridentine. The Vatican was out to destroy the SSPX, and pulled a classic bait and switch.

They got Lefebre to agree to appointing only one bishop to carry on after him, then they jumped up and said, "Ha, ha, gotcha. We get to make the rules, and the rule is that we get to pick the bishop. Let's see, now, should it be Weakland, or Mahoney, or...wait, here's a guy who hates the Tridentine Mass, rejects the Resurrection, and rapes at least one altar boy every day. Perfect. Bye bye, SSPX."

That is absolutely not true!

They would accept Dom Gerard, Fr. Pozzetto, Fr. Laffargue. But our own candidates they would have put off, put off, put off. As for de Saventhem, he argues just like one of them! (Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to the Four Bishops Elect, June 13, 1988)

Here is what Lefebvre called Dom Gerard in his letter of June 12, 1988:

The Traditional Benedictine Prior, Dom Gerard,

Fr. Pozzetto and Fr. Laffargue were both SSPX priests.

Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude for the intention that you manifested to take into account the particular situation of the Society, proposing to nominate a bishop chosen from its members, and especially in charge of providing for its special needs. Of course, I leave to Your Holiness the decision concerning the person to be chosen and the opportune moment. May I just express the wish that this be in the not too distant future? (Draft Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to His Holiness John Paul II, On the Regularization of the Society of St. Pius X)

It is not a "hit-piece", but an official document of a Pontifical Council.

8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations. (Lamentibili Sane)

Where is this "formal declaration" by the Pope?

In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. (John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei")

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. 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. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth". (ibid.)

Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law. (ibid.)

Here is what Blessed Pius IX said about schism:

All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic. (Quartus Supra)

It never happened. He hid behind the latae sententiae assumption--though this depended entirely on the moral disposition of the Archbishop and not the Pope. And the reason he hid behind this technicality was because he could not risk exposure of his own motives. This would have certainly happened had he set up a papal tribunal which would have allowed Archbishop Lefebvre the right to defend himself. The Pontiff couldn't risk this because it would have exposed the Archbishop's innocence and the papal animus against Catholic Tradition.

Ridiculous. The Pope does not have an animus against Holy Tradition. Why else would he feel that there needs to be a continuity?

Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church. (ibid.)

In other words, this whole article is the usual propaganda, using fancy expressions to disguise an absence of substance. It is laughable to suppose the Motu Proprio was this "formal declaration." There was nothing formal about it. Its proper subject was the Indult, not any supposed excommunication. Furthermore, this letter actually contradicts the Pope's own Canon Law which provided appropriate exceptions for disobedience (canons 1323 and 1324) which the Archbishop evoked. There was never any excommunication, in other words, whatever the Supreme Pontiff might have said in a letter.

The Pontificial Council, which is the authentic interpreter of Canon Law, says in the posted document that the exceptions did not apply.

Can. 16 §1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.
§2 An authentic interpretation which is presented by way of a law has the same force as the law itself, and must be promulgated. If it simply declares the sense of words which are certain in themselves, it has retroactive force. If it restricts or extends the law or resolves a doubt, it is not retroactive.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.