SSPX Priest Proves the Society is in
Schism
Fr. Gleize Makes a Devastating
Admissionand a Fatal Theological Error
Mr. John F. Salza, O.P.
November A.D. 2022
Summary of Points in this Article
· The SSPX admits that usurping a divine right which belongs to the Pope alone is a schismatic act.
· The Church teaches that the selection
of bishops is a divine right which belongs to the Pope alone (by virtue of the
Primacy).
· Because Abp. Lefebvre usurped this
right of the Primacy of bishops in 1988 against the Pope’s will, he committed a
schismatic act (the SSPX did the same in 1991 with its consecration of Bp. Licino
Rangel).
· The SSPX claims the consecrations were
not schismatic because Lefebvre did not intend to confer jurisdiction (another
divine right of the Pope). This is false because:
ü Lefebvre did intend to confer, and
the SSPX claims to have, ordinary episcopal jurisdiction.
ü Usurping the Pope’s divine right to select
bishops is schismatic, even if Lefebvre did
not intend to confer jurisdiction.
· The SSPX claims the consecrations
were not schismatic because a bishop other than the Pope can confer episcopal orders.
This is false because:
ü A bishop has no divine right to
consecrate another bishop against the Pope’s will, even if he has the
metaphysical ability to do so.
ü Usurping the Pope’s divine right to select
bishops is schismatic, even if Lefebvre did not intend to confer jurisdiction.
In
short, because the SSPX concedes that usurping a divine right of the Pope alone
is a schismatic act, Lefebvre’s 1988 consecrations were schismatic, as Pope
John Paul II declared.
Introduction to the SSPX’s “Refined” Position on the 1988 (and
1991) Consecrations
Evidently, our work this past year, which has exposed the
many theological errors of the Society of St. Pius X (on ecclesiology,
canonical mission, jurisdiction, schism, etc.), has forced the Society to take
a closer look at its position. On September 22, 2022, the Society published an
article by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize called “We Owe to Pius XII Important
Clarifications on the Nature of the Episcopate.” This article is clearly a
response to our work and a hearty attempt at damage control.
In this article, issued shortly after many podcasts on the
Society’s schism were aired,[1] Fr. Gleize attempts to refine the Society’s position on
schism and the 1988 consecrations. In fact, Fr. Gleize tries to use the
teachings of Pope Pius XII – who condemned illicitly consecrated bishops as
“thieves and robbers” - to show that the “episcopate in the Society is not
schismatic.”[2] Clearly, Fr. Gleize believed it was necessary to confront
the very teachings from Pius XII we have used this past year to demonstrate the
SSPX’s schism, by trying to make distinctions that spare the Society from the
Pope’s condemnations.
Unfortunately, Fr. Gleize’s efforts have backfired on him.
As we will see, Fr. Gleize makes a devastating admission and
a fatal theological error which proves, without a doubt, that the 1988 consecrations
of the SSPX were schismatic, just as Pope John Paul II declared. Fr.
Gleize’s article is critically important because it has reduced the debate to a
mutually agreeable principle (usurping a right of the Primacy = schismatic),
and also exposed a critical error in the Society’s position (failing to
understand that the right to select bishops is a divine right of the Primacy). By
directly exposing the Society’s error using the teachings of the Magisterium, as
we do in this article, there is nothing left of the Society’s position. There
are no more meaningless distinctions to hide behind. This is a game-over moment for the SSPX.
To tee up the Society’s newly
refined position, Fr. Gleize first explains to the reader the distinction
between the power of episcopal orders and the power of jurisdiction. With these
distinctions in mind, Fr. Gleize then argues that the “episcopate in the
Society” is not schismatic because Abp. Lefevre (and his bishops) never claimed
to communicate the power of jurisdiction, but only the power of orders. He
reasons that because the Pope alone has the power to confer jurisdiction upon
bishops, while both the Pope and bishops can confer the power of orders,
usurping the former power is always schismatic while the latter is not.
In other words, according to Gleize, attempting to do the
“theologically impossible” (i.e., a bishop conferring jurisdiction) is
schismatic, while doing the “theologically possible” (i.e., a bishop conferring
episcopal ordination, even against the Pope’s will) is not. That is Fr.
Gleize’s main argument. Thus, Fr. Gleize concludes, because Lefebvre only
consecrated bishops against the will of the Pope, but did not presume to confer
jurisdiction upon them, the consecrations were not schismatic.
Fr. Gleize’s position can be summarized as follows:
1 – Power of Jurisdiction: For a bishop to communicate
the power of episcopal jurisdiction is schismatic because such power belongs to
the Pope alone (any attempt to do so would be a theological impossibility).
2 – Power of Orders: For a bishop to communicate the
power of episcopal orders against the will of the Pope is not schismatic
because such power also belongs to the bishops and not the Pope alone (a
bishop’s power to confer orders is not a theological impossibility).
A Summary of
Fr. Gleize’s Errors
Now, as alluded to above, Fr. Gleize
makes a devastating admission in point 1, and a fatal theological error point
2. First, regarding point 1, because it can be shown that Lefebvre attempted to
confer, and the SSPX bishops have, in fact, assumed for themselves, an
episcopal jurisdiction that must come from the Pope alone, they are schismatics,
according to Fr. Gleize’s own admission. (As Gleize correctly notes, such would
be a usurpation of a power of the Primacy). We will prove this in the first
part of this article.
Next, Fr. Gleize makes a fatal
theological error in point 2, by failing to recognize that selecting and consecrating
a bishop (communicating the power of orders) against the will of the Pope is necessarily
a schismatic act, because the Pope alone has the right to select who will
join the College of Bishops (of which he is the head), and this is also as
a matter of divine law (by virtue of the Primacy). Never does one become a member of the College of Bishops,
against the will of the head of the College of Bishops.
It makes no difference that a bishop who is not the Pope has
the metaphysical ability to confer orders; he has no right to do so
against the will of the Pope. It is astonishing that Fr. Gleize, a seminary
professor, completely overlooks the Pope’s divine right to select a bishop to
perpetuate apostolic succession (an issue of ecclesiology and the divine
constitution of the Church), while zeroing in on a bishop’s mere ability to
confer orders (an issue of sacramental theology).
Needless to say, the determination of who will join the
College of Bishops (which is the exclusive right of the Pope, and which he does
either explicitly, or at least tacitly[3]) necessarily precedes the conferral of the power of
orders (which is then done by either the Pope or another bishop with the
Pope’s consent). Thus, because Fr. Gleize admits that “someone who
arrogates to himself the Pope’s own authority…fits this definition of schism,”[4] the selection and consecration of a bishop against the
will of the Roman Pontiff is necessarily a schismatic act, according to the
Society of St. Pius X. That means the 1988 and 1991 consecrations performed
by the Society were schismatic.
The formal efficient cause of a Catholic episcopal
consecration is the Roman Pontiff, even if he is not the one actually conferring
the orders (the consecrating bishop is only the material efficient cause). This
is because the selection of the bishop, and corresponding episcopal
consecration belong, by divine right, to the Pope alone.
Accordingly, and consistent with Fr. Gleize’s reasoning in
point 1, Lefebvre’s 1988 consecrations were schismatic because he usurped a
right (to choose bishops) which belongs to the Pope alone. Indeed, it is the
Pope who selects and then receives the bishops into collegial communion (the
superior always receives the inferior, and not the other way around). The
bishops of the SSPX were not received by the Pope; they were selected and
consecrated against the will of the Pope, which is a usurpation of the Primacy.
The same, of course, applies to the four SSPX bishops; they are schismatics
even if they have not assumed an episcopal jurisdiction for themselves, because
their reception of episcopal orders is a usurpation of the Pope’s right (and
his alone) to select bishops for the College, of which he is the head.
To anticipate the
facile objection, we note that the process of nominating bishops is in
the domain of discipline and ecclesiastical law (this process has varied over
the centuries in both the East and West, subject to the Pope’s approval); but
the right to determine who will ultimately be admitted into the College
of Bishops is a prerogative of the Pope alone, by virtue of his Primacy.[5] In fact, Pius XII
even declares that the right to nominate bishops belongs to the Pope
alone: “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.”[6]
Thus, even the disciplinary
process of nominating bishops, which necessarily precedes the Pope’s divine
right of ultimately selecting the bishop for consecration, is also subject to
the exclusive authority of the Roman Pontiff. This is because, as Vatican I
teaches de fide: “Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and
dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the
duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in
matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the
discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”[7] The council goes
on to say: “This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart
from it without endangering his faith and salvation.”[8]
Indeed, Blessed
Pius IX condemned the “neo-schismatic” Armenians, who selected and consecrated
bishops against the will of the Pontiff, as “without being subject to the
Apostolic power in matters of discipline.” The Pope went on to say: “Teaching
of this kind is heretical, and not just since the definition of the power
and nature of the papal primacy was determined by the ecumenical Vatican
Council: the Catholic Church has always considered it such and abhorred it.”[9] As we will see
later, the teaching which denies the Pope’s exclusive right to select bishops is
heretical, not only because it rejects the supreme authority related to matters
of discipline (e.g. the nomination process), but also because the Pope’s ultimate
right to select bishops is a matter of divine law, granted to the office of the
papacy by Christ Himself.
Just as Jesus Christ alone chose and sent the Apostles, so
the Vicar of Christ alone chooses and sends the successors of the Apostles. On this point alone, the position of the SSPX crumbles
under its own weight.
In addition to his theological errors, there is also an error
in Fr. Gleize’s reasoning, which is that an act cannot be schismatic if the
person has the power to perform the act, it being “theologically possible” to
carry out (i.e., a bishop conferring orders). This reasoning is absurd; schism
is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with those
subject to him (canon 751), and such refusal of submission or communion are
always within a person’s power of the will, which is why schism is a sin
against charity. Clearly, one does not have to attempt to perform an act that is
not metaphysically capable or theologically possible of being carried out, in
order for the act to be schismatic!
Now, the usurpation of a power belonging to the Pope alone
and against his will is the most egregious form of schism, because
it is a direct attack on the divine constitution of the Church, and thus
admits of no mitigating circumstances. But acts which are “theologically possible”
to carry out, such as the illegal ordinations and other sacraments Lefebvre
performed from 1975 to 1988 and beyond, and his 15-year repudiation of papal
authority by ignoring all canonical warnings and censures against him, would
certainly meet the definition of schism under canon 751. Luther did not attempt
the metaphysically or “theologically impossible” by assuming or conferring
jurisdiction, and yet he was clearly a schismatic.
Hence,
attempting to carry out an act that is “theologically impossible” to actually
perform (in the words of Fr. Gleize) is not what makes an act schismatic, but
rather whether the act constitutes a withdrawal of submission from the
authority of the Roman Pontiff. And an act which attacks the very foundation of
unity in the Church (i.e., Lefebvre’s usurpation of the Pope’s exclusive
authority to choose bishops in order to perpetuate apostolic succession) is
necessarily schismatic, with no exceptions for “necessity” (not to mention
Lefebvre intended to perpetuate succession in an organization, previously
suppressed by the Pope in 1975, that is not part of the Roman Catholic Church).
Indeed, other than the Church’s right to elect a Pope, a Pope’s right to select
bishops to perpetuate apostolic succession is most important for the
preservation of the Church until the Second Coming. No “necessity” can justify
an attack on this process, which was instituted by Christ Himself (and Fr.
Gleize himself admits no necessity can justify the usurpation of a right of the
Primacy).
As the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of
Legislative Texts declared, “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.”[10]
Let us now further address Fr. Gleize’s errors concerning the
SSPX and the power of jurisdiction. Thereafter, we will address his errors concerning
the selection of bishops and the power of orders. In the end, we will see that
Fr. Gleize has dug the Society’s own grave.
The SSPX Usurps the Pope’s Divine Right to Confer
Jurisdiction (Fr. Gleize admits this is schismatic)
We first address Fr. Gleize’s claim
that Abp. Lefebvre did not attempt to confer “a power of jurisdiction” on the
four bishops he illicitly consecrated. Says Fr. Gleize: “Archbishop Lefebvre did not intend
to arrogate to himself the authority of the Supreme Pontiff in order to
communicate a power of jurisdiction to the four bishops whom he consecrated.
He was content to communicate to them the power of
order, by means of the sacred rite of episcopal consecration. This
distinction is possible theologically, as we showed in light of the teachings
of Pius XII.”[11]
Now, Fr. Gleize’s claim is not only
factually inaccurate, but also reveals an erroneous understanding of the nature
of the episcopate itself (which is also reflected in the Society’s errors
on Vatican II’s teaching on Collegiality, not addressed here). Let’s take the
latter error first. St. Thomas teaches that while the simple priest is primarily
ordered to sanctification (confecting the physical Body of Christ), a bishop is
ordered to governance (the Mystical Body of Christ).[12] As the Council of
Trent affirmed, the bishops have been “placed by the Holy Ghost to rule the
Church of God.”[13]
Thus, the Church teaches that a Catholic bishop is first
and foremost ordered to ecclesiastical governance, to rule his
flock, for which jurisdiction is required. Episcopal consecration
gives him supplementary powers to perfect his mission (including the fullness
of the priesthood), but he is ordered primarily to govern, through
jurisdiction. An anticipated episcopal consecration (for a bishop selected by the
Pope) necessarily contemplates the related canonical mission and jurisdiction
(again, determined by the Pope). Hence, if as Gleize claims, Lefebvre was truly
“content to communicate
to them the power of order, by means of the sacred rite of episcopal
consecration,” then Lefebvre had a profound ignorance of the nature of the
episcopate, by attempting to bifurcate two powers that are necessarily
interdependent and ordered to each other. Indeed, episcopal jurisdiction is the
authority required to carry out the divine mission of the Church.
As we will now see, Fr. Gleize’s assertion about Lefebvre’s
intentions concerning jurisdiction is also factually inaccurate, because it
directly contradicts the statements and actions that Lefebvre himself took, as
well as those of the other SSPX bishops. Lefebvre not only intended to confer
the power of orders upon the four bishops, but also grant them a power of
jurisdiction in the realm of governance (not just sanctification), the
type of which would normally be exercised by bishops with ordinary jurisdiction
(over dioceses), or of the Holy See.
But it gets even worse for Fr. Gleize, because he admits
that schism exists when one separates himself from lawful authority and makes
himself a “competing authority.” Says Gleize: “Schism consists precisely in
refusing as a matter of principle to subordinate one’s action to the precept of
the authority and to separate oneself from it so as to set oneself up as a
competing authority.”[14] As we will see, this is a damning admission for the SSPX.
Did
Abp. Lefebvre intend to set up a “competing authority” that would clash with
the diocesan bishops and the Holy See? He most certainly did, based on his
words and actions. At the end of his life, Lefebvre desired to set up an
ecclesiastical tribunal of sorts, that would operate as a competing or “substitute”
authority vis-à-vis diocesan tribunals and the Roman Rota. Said Lefebvre: “As long as the present Roman authorities are imbued with
ecumenism and modernism, as long as their decisions and the New Code of Canon
Law are influenced by these false principles, it will be necessary to
establish substitute authorities, faithfully keeping the Catholic
principles of Catholic Tradition and Catholic Law.”[15]
The Society has indeed erected a
tribunal that acts as a “competing authority” with the legitimate tribunals of
the Catholic Church, which it calls the ”St. Charles Borromeo Canonical
Commission.” According to Bishop Fellay, this schismatic tribunal arrogates to
itself the jurisdiction to grant dispensations for mixed marriages, issue
declarations of nullity (marriage annulments), lift ecclesiastical censures in
the external forum including excommunications, dispense from religious vows,
and authorize exorcisms, all without any ecclesiastical approval whatsoever.[16]
The Society’s schismatic tribunal is
specifically designed to operate as a “competing authority” (Fr. Gleize’s
words) with the legitimate tribunals of the Roman Catholic Church, by requiring
its adherents to swear on the Gospels that they will “conform myself to the
verdict of the tribunal” and “not to approach an official ecclesiastical
tribunal” of the Church, which the Society calls “Novus Ordo tribunals.”[17] In fact, Bishop Tissier even declares:
“The faithful do not have the right to go to Novus Ordo tribunals” and “the
priest must never advise anyone to go to a Novus Ordo tribunal.”[18] A clearer case of “setting oneself up as a
competing authority” (again, Gleize’s words) against legitimate authority can
hardly be imagined.
Hence, notwithstanding Gleize’s
claims to the contrary, Lefebvre did intend to communicate the power of
jurisdiction to his bishops and priests by erecting a competing tribunal to
judge matters that can only be rightly judged by “official ecclesiastical
tribunals.” Lefebvre’s usurpation of the authority to judge marriage cases by
true ecclesiastical judges is anathematized by the Council of Trent which
declared: “If anyone shall say that matrimonial causes do not concern
ecclesiastical judges, let him be anathema.”[19]
Note also that the Society is not
merely claiming that its tribunal operates on the basis of “supplied
jurisdiction” (which, as I have proven in other articles, does not even apply
to SSPX clergy because of the absence of common error and positive and probable
doubt). Rather, the Society claims that it enjoys “ordinary episcopal
jurisdiction,” in addition to supplied jurisdiction. Says Bishop Fellay: “The bishops of the Society, though deprived of any
territorial jurisdiction, nevertheless possess the suppletory jurisdiction
necessary to exercise the powers attached to the episcopal order and
certain acts of ordinary episcopal jurisdiction.”[20]
Notice that Bishop Fellay distinguishes between “suppletory
jurisdiction” (by which he presumably means “supplied jurisdiction”) and “ordinary episcopal jurisdiction,” which would be
jurisdiction granted by the Pope in connection with a canonical appointment to
an office - even though the Society bishops hold no office in the Church to
which “ordinary episcopal jurisdiction” would attach. In fact, Bishop Fellay
further clarified that Abp. Lefebvre considered himself to possess a
jurisdiction “permitting him, in the interests of the faithful, to grant his
priests similar faculties.”[21]
Fellay also refers to their “added powers
and faculties relating
to marriage certificates
(cf. Cor Unum n. 42, p. 44-56), dispensations from
vows and the lifting of censures, along with useful precisions regarding cases
where there is a danger of death and cases of emergency.”[22]
Fellay
further says: “The faculties granted to priests
are not only for priests who are members of the Society, but for all priests
who reside for a prolonged period of time in our houses…”[23] Thus, according to
Fellay, faculties of jurisdiction are somehow granted
even to non-SSPX priests (by whom?) if they hang out with SSPX priests long
enough. Indeed, because
supplied jurisdiction is not a “faculty” that is “granted” to priests by a
bishop, Fellay is referring to an “ordinary episcopal jurisdiction” (his words)
that could only come from the Pope.[24]
Bishop Tissier further explains that the Society’s
jurisdiction is “a true
jurisdiction” because
“we have the power and the duty of handing down true
verdicts
which have potestatem ligandi vet solvendi [the power of binding and loosing]. Our verdicts therefore have an obligatory
character.”[25] And, if it couldn’t get any clearer, Tissier exclaims: “It is true that our verdicts of the third
instance replace
the verdicts of the Roman Rota, which acts in the Pope’s name as a
tribunal of the third instance.”[26] You read that correctly.
In the exact words of Fr. Gleize, schism consists precisely in refusing as a matter of principle to subordinate one’s
action to the precept of the authority (that is, true Catholic tribunals, which
the SSPX calls “Novus Ordo tribunals”); and to separate oneself from that
authority (by swearing on the Gospels never to approach such tribunals and to
submit to the Society’s verdicts); so as to set oneself up as a competing
authority (or “substitute authority,” in the words of Lefebvre, whose verdicts
will “replace” those of the Roman Catholic Church).
Indeed, schism consists precisely in the Society’s erection
of a canonical tribunal which assumes a power of jurisdiction that the Pope alone
can confer.[27] Because Fr. Gleize concedes that the usurpation of a
power which belongs to the Pope alone is necessarily schismatic, he is forced
to admit that those who presume to confer and accept such jurisdiction, like
those in the SSPX, are schismatics. Again, as Fr. Gleize himself states: “Someone
who arrogates to himself the Pope’s own authority in order to communicate a
power of jurisdiction of which he is not the source fits this definition of
schism.”[28]
Moreover, as Fr. Gleize also admits, no “state of necessity”
or “crisis” or “state of emergency” (the buzzwords of the so-called traditional
movement) exonerates an act from schism when the act is a usurpation of a right
or power which belongs to the Pope alone. Says Gleize: “To
communicate somehow the power of jurisdiction in the Church contrary to the
will of the Pope contradicts a principle of divine right and is therefore a
theological impossibility. No exceptional situation, no extraordinary
circumstance could ever legitimize, much less make possible, the communication
of the power of jurisdiction against the Pope’s will.”[29]
Fr. Gleize’s Admission: According
to the very standard for schism set forth by Fr. Gleize, Lefebvre and the other
SSPX bishops are schismatics because they have arrogated to themselves a divine
right (here, the right to confer jurisdiction) which belongs to the Pope alone.
The following syllogism applies:
Major:
Usurping the Pope’s divine right to confer jurisdiction is schismatic because it
is an exclusive right and privilege of the Primacy.
Minor: The
SSPX bishops have usurped the Pope’s right to confer jurisdiction (by
attempting to both confer and exercise it).
Conclusion: The
SSPX bishops are schismatics.
The
SSPX Usurps the Pope’s Divine Right to Select and Consecrate Bishops (Fr.
Gleize is forced to admit this is schismatic)
We now turn to Fr. Gleize’s fatal theological error, which is
his claim that a bishop who consecrates another bishop contrary to the will of
the Pope is not schismatic, because the bishop also has the power (the
“theological possibility”) of performing the act, and hence the act cannot be a
usurpation of a divine right (of the Primacy). Says Gleize:
“To communicate somehow the power of jurisdiction in the
Church contrary to the will of the Pope contradicts a principle of divine right
and is therefore a theological impossibility…On the other hand, communicating
the power of order against the Pope’s will, by performing an episcopal
consecration, does not contradict a principle of divine right,
since Divine Revelation does not teach that only the Pope can proceed to
consecrate a bishop. Divine right teaches that every bishop can
do this, since it is a question here of a theological possibility.”[30]
Of course, it is not a “divine right”
for a bishop to “communicate the power of order against the Pope’s will.” “Divine
right,” in the words of Gleize, “teaches” no such thing. The truth is just the
opposite; it is contrary to the “divine right” of the Pope for a bishop
to “communicate the power of orders” against the Pontiff’s will. Such an act
would be a usurpation of the Primacy because the
authority to choose and consecrate a bishop is “a principle of divine right” which
belongs to the Pope alone. This divine truth, which has always been taught by the
Magisterium, is totally overlooked or misunderstood by Fr. Gleize, which eviscerates
his position to the point that there is nothing left of it.
Sacramental theology teaches that a
bishop can validly confer episcopal orders by imparting the sacramental
character, but ecclesiology teaches that the “divine right” to do so is the
sole prerogative of the Roman Pontiff, by virtue of the Primacy. Fr. Gleize’s
grave, theological error is his failure to distinguish between the metaphysical
ability of a bishop to confer episcopal orders, and the divine
right to
choose and confer episcopal orders (which belongs to the Pope alone). Because
Fr. Gleize has already admitted that usurping a divine right which belongs
exclusively to the Pope is schismatic, his failure to recognize that the Pope’s
right to select bishops is such a divine right is fatal to the SSPX’s position.
Proving this divine right of the Pope proves Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops are
schismatics, according Gleize’s own admission.
Let us now prove this from Church teaching.
The
Teaching of the Magisterium on the Pope’s Divine Right to Select and Consecrate
Bishops
The Roman Pontiffs have always
taught that they have the sole right to both elect and consecrate bishops, as a
matter of divine law. As Pius IX proclaimed: “The Roman Pontiffs
have always strongly defended these rights and privileges from heretics and
ambitious men at the request of bishops of every rank, nation and rite.”[31] We see this
doctrine in antiquity, for example, with Pope St. Innocent and St. Gregory the
Great, and more recently with Popes Pius VI, Pius IX and Pius XII, among
others. Pope Pius IX affirms that true Catholic bishops are only
those “elected and consecrated by the authority of this Apostolic See.”[32] Just as Christ divinely established the office of the
Primacy, He also divinely established the episcopate (or College of Bishops),
which depends completely on the Primacy, the rock of St. Peter. This dependence
includes the Pope’s sole prerogative of determining, as head of the College,
who is to be admitted into the College.
Both the right to choose the bishop (the first step) and then
consecrate the bishop (the second step) are the sole prerogatives of the Pope,
by virtue of the papal office (notwithstanding the fact that the Pope can delegate
the right to consecrate to another bishop). Selecting and consecrating a bishop
are interdependent powers which cannot be separated; indeed, the latter
(consecration) depends upon the former (selection). As we mentioned above, the
Pope is the formal efficient cause for all Catholic episcopal consecrations,
even when he is not the one actually conferring the orders. Again,
just as Christ alone chose His Apostles, the Vicar of Christ alone chooses the
successors of the Apostles.
Blessed Pius IX explains this divine right of the Roman
Pontiff at length in the encyclical Quartus Supra. The Pope states that
the divine right to select bishops, even of the Eastern Rite Church, remains
with the Roman Pontiff, as part of the Church’s Sacred Tradition: “The writings of
the ancients testify that the election of Patriarchs had never been considered
definite and valid without the agreement and confirmation of the Roman
Pontiff.”[33] He also says: “Everyone
knows that the eternal and at times the temporal happiness of people depends on
the proper election of bishops; the circumstances of time and
place must be considered referring all the authority for selecting the
bishops to the Apostolic See.”[34]
Pope Pius IX also underscores that
the Pontiffs are not bound by the nominating process (which they themselves
approve) which is a matter of ecclesiastical law, because the ultimate selection
of a bishop is the sole right of the Pope as a matter of divine law. Says Pius
IX: “However, some resent and bemoan both Our declaration
that this Apostolic See has the right and power to elect a bishop
either from the three names recommended or apart from them and Our prohibition
against the enthronement of an elected Patriarch without Our prior
confirmation.”[35]
To be clear, this exclusive right of
the Roman Pontiff to select bishops is a matter of divine law, and not
ecclesiastical law, because Christ Himself vested it in the Petrine office, the
Roman Primacy. Blessed Pius IX makes this clear when he refers to “the Apostolic
authority given to Us by the Lord through the most holy Peter,
prince of the Apostles,’ to appoint bishops, priests and deacons
in every city subject to the sees of Jerusalem and Antioch.”[36] The right to
appoint bishops is a divine right, given by Christ to St. Peter and his
successors, as part of the Petrine office.
Pope Pius IX
further affirms that the election of bishops is a “divine right” of the Pope, given
to him “by Christ Himself,” which is indestructible and absolute:
“But We considered that We should not
keep silence on Our right to elect a bishop apart from the three
recommended candidates, in case the Apostolic See should be compelled to
exercise this right in the future. But even if We had remained
silent, this right and duty of the See of blessed Peter would
have remained unimpaired. For the rights and privileges given to the See
by Christ Himself, while they may be attacked, cannot be destroyed; no
man has the power to renounce a divine right which he might at some
time be compelled to exercise by the will of God Himself.”[37]
(Note: the term “divine right” used by Pius IX to explain this right of the
Primacy is the very same term Fr. Gleize uses to deny this right of the
Primacy!)
Because the prerogative to select and
ordain bishops is a divine and exclusive right of the Roman Pontiff, if a
bishop (like Lefebvre) were to assume the right for himself, he and the bishops
he consecrates would necessarily be schismatic – again, a principle that
Fr. Gleize concedes. This truth was taught by another Pope, Pius VI, in his
encyclical Charitas:
“For the right of ordaining bishops belongs
only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of
Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without
obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain
and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future
actions.”[38]
Pope Pius VI
is reiterating the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Trent, which condemned
those (like the SSPX) who say that bishops “who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by ecclesiastical and canonical power,
but come from elsewhere, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments.”[39] Notice that Trent makes a distinction
between those who are “rightly ordained” and those who are “sent.” “Rightly
ordained” refers to the Pope’s divine right to select and consecrate bishops,
while “sent” refers to the Pope’s divine right to confer jurisdiction through
canonical mission. Indeed, the right to select, consecrate and send bishops all
rest exclusively with the Roman Pontiff. Trent goes on to say that bishops “must
be assumed by authority of the Roman Pontiff,” which again means they must be
received by the Pope (the superior always receives the inferior), and that only
happens when the Pope approves their selection for the College of Bishops.
This is why Pope Pius XII declared
that “no one can lawfully
confer episcopal consecration unless he has received the mandate of the
Apostolic See.”[40] Notwithstanding the claims of Fr. Gleize, it does not matter
whether the bishop is metaphysically capable of conferring orders; he has no right
to confer episcopal consecration without the approval of the Pope, and if
he does so against the Pope’s will, he is usurping a divine right of the
Primacy, established by Christ Himself, which is a schismatic act (again, Fr.
Gleize agrees with this in principle).
This is also why Pius XII and prior
Popes punished illicit consecrations with excommunication, which publicly
declared what had already occurred, namely, a schismatic separation from
the Church through the usurpation of the Primacy. Says Pius XII:
“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.”[41]
Because bishops who confer and receive
consecration against the will of the Pope are usurping a divine right of the
Primacy, all their acts, in the words of Pius XII, are “criminal and
sacrilegious.”[42] They are criminal because this usurpation is the robbery
of someone else’s possessions against their will (e.g., Lefebvre usurping the
divine rights of John Paul II, and against his will). They are sacrilegious
because they traffic in spiritual goods. And thus, says Pius XII: “To such conduct the warning words of the Divine Teacher
fittingly apply: ‘He who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs
up another way, is a thief and a robber.”[43]
Thus, using Fr. Gleize’s own words, selecting and
consecrating bishops “contrary to the will of the Pope contradicts a principle
of divine right,” and “no exceptional situation, no extraordinary circumstance
could ever legitimize, much less make possible”[44] the usurpation of this right of the Primacy. Thus, the SSPX
cannot appeal to “necessity,” “crisis” or “emergency” (as they have done for
the past 35 years) to justify their illicit consecrations, as Fr. Gleize must
now concede.
Fr.
Gleize’s Admission: According to the very standard for schism set forth by
Fr. Gleize, Lefebvre and the other SSPX bishops are schismatics because they
have arrogated to themselves a divine right (here, to select and consecrate
bishops) which belongs to the Pope alone. The following syllogism applies:
Major: Usurping the Pope’s divine right to select bishops is
schismatic because it is an exclusive right of the Primacy.
Minor: The SSPX bishops have usurped the power of selecting
bishops (with their consecrations in 1988 and 1991).
Conclusion: The SSPX bishops are schismatics.
Needless to say, the same applies to the episcopal
consecrations performed by the Old Catholics, the Resistance and the Sedevacantists.
Conclusion
This latest attempt by Fr.
Gleize and the Society to defend their episcopal consecrations in 1988 and 1991
against the charge of schism falls completely flat on its face. It puts a spotlight
on the Society’s error, which is a failure to recognize that the right to
select and consecrate bishops is a divine and exclusive right of the Primacy,
granted by Christ Himself, as the Magisterium and the “writings of the
ancients” have always taught. Because the Society has now conceded that the
usurpation of such a right “fits this definition of schism,” it has
inadvertently admitted that the consecration of SSPX bishops in 1988 and 1991
were schismatic.
The exposure and refutation of the Society’s position based
on its latest offering vindicates the declaration of Pope John Paul II that the
SSPX is in schism, and anyone who “formally adheres” to the movement is
excommunicated for schism. As the PCILT also declared, “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.”[45] It
also vindicates the conclusion of the SSPX priests Lefebvre commissioned to
advise him, prior to the 1988 consecrations, which was that the
consecrations would, in fact, be schismatic.[46] Yes,
Lefebvre was warned in advance, by his own priests, who told him: “The cause of
schism is appropriating to oneself a power which by divine right is reserved to
the Sovereign Pontiff alone.”[47]
Fr. Gleize’s article is providential
at this time, when some Catholics are being tempted to leave the Church for
Society chapels, due to the restrictions in some dioceses on the traditional
Latin Mass. Needless to say, two wrongs don’t make a right. Even if
restrictions on the 1962 Missal are abusive, this does not change the
theological fact that the Society is in schism, its bishops are schismatics,
and anyone who formally adheres to the Lefebvrian movement is excommunicated
for schism. Those who have left the Church for SSPX chapels have fallen into
the error of equating those who “profess the true faith” with those who
celebrate a particular Missal, instead of those “who are joined with Christ in
its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments,
and ecclesiastical governance” (canon 205).
All three juridical bonds depend upon unity with St. Peter,
which is severed by schism. The most egregious form of schism is the usurpation
of a divine right of the Primacy, which Fr. Gleize has conceded. And as we have
seen, the Magisterium teaches this happens when a bishop selects and
consecrates another bishop against the will of the Roman Pontiff, as the SSPX
has done. As St. Augustine said: “There is nothing more grave than the
sacrilege of schism; there is never a legitimate necessity to break unity.”
Holy Mother Church has made many efforts to heal the schism
and bring the Society into communion with the successor of St. Peter. However,
the leadership of the SSPX, like all schismatics throughout history, have
refused the conditions for integration into the Church, and remain willfully
separated from her governance. The Society’s contumacy continues based on its false
accusations that the “conciliar” Church fell into the heresy of Modernism at
Vatican II. But as Pius IX taught, “every schism fabricates a
heresy to justify withdrawal from the Church.”[48] In fact, Pius IX’s condemnation of the illicit episcopal
consecrations of the Old Catholics can be equally applied to the SSPX:
And surely what
these sons of perdition (Old Catholics + Society of St. Pius X)
intend is quite clear from their other writings, especially that impious and
most imprudent one which has only recently been published by the person whom
they recently constituted as a pseudo-bishop (Joseph Hubert
Reinkens in 1873 + Fellay, Tissier, de Galarreta,
Williamson in 1988; Rangel in 1991). For these writings attack and
pervert the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops (usurping
a right of the Primacy), who are the successors of blessed Peter
and the apostles; they transfer it instead to the people, or, as they say, to
the community (Lefebvre said jurisdiction “comes from the requests of
the priests and faithful” who “gives by this very fact, authority to the
bishop” February 20, 1991). They obstinately reject and oppose the
infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in
teaching matters (e.g., the Pope’s divine right to select, consecrate and
give canonical mission to bishops). Incredibly, they boldly affirm
that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people
conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion (the “Novus
Ordo” church) fell into heresy when they approved and professed the
definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council (Lefebvre said the same
about the “conciliar” Church after the Second Vatican Council).
Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously
declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and
the bishops have erred (Lefebvre said the same by declaring the Church
“is no longer Catholic”). They assert the necessity of restoring a
legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop (Lefebvre
asserted the same for his 1988 conescrations), who has entered not
by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation
of Christ upon his head” (Fellay, Tissier, de Galarreta, Williamson,
Rangel)[49]
Indeed, the devil, who is the
instigator of all heresy and schism, does not change his playbook. All
schismatics have followed this playbook throughout history, and they often end
with the most egregious form of schism, which is the usurpation of the Primacy
through illicit episcopal consecrations. Lucifer of Cagliari’s consecration of
Paulinus, and the many consecrations of Donatist bishops (e.g., Majorinus,
Donatus, Crispinus) during the Arian crisis are some of the earliest examples,
and the schismatic consecrations of the Old Catholics, the SSPX, the Resistance
and the Sedevacantists are the most recent examples.
Fr. Gleize and the Society of St. Pius X have proven they
can no longer defend the indefensible. This is the fork in the road for the
SSPX. It is time for the Society to repent of its errors, and return to the
Roman Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
[1] “Leaving
the SSPX Behind,” Salza & Bartel, The Logos Project (July 23, 2022); “What
is the Way Forward for the SSPX?,” Salza, Decrevi Determined to be Catholic
(July 30, 2022); “The Errors of Archbishop Lefebvre,” Salza, The Robert
Sungenis Show (August 4, 2022); “Is the SSPX Right?,” Salza, Reason &
Theology (August 6, 2022); “The Formation and Suppression of the SSPX,” Salza
& Bartel, The Logos Project (August 9, 2022); “The Schism of the Century –
SSPX,” Salza & Bartel, The Logos Project (August 20, 2022); “The SSPX and
the Sunday Obligation,” Salza, The Logos Project (August 27, 2022); “Marcel
Lefebvre Was Wrong,” Salza, The Logos Project (September 3, 2022); “Questions
for Bishop Schneider on the SSPX,” Salza, The Logos Project (September 17,
2022).
[2]
Note that Fr. Gleize does not refer to Pope Benedict XVI’s lifting of the
declared excommunications in 2009 as “proof” there is no schism, like the many
lay apologists for the SSPX claim. Perhaps Fr. Gleize recognizes that one can
be an excommunicated schismatic without a declaration of same from the proper
authority (which is the case for those who “formally adhere” to the SSPX’s
schism).
[3] We
see the Pope’s tacit approval of episcopal ordinations in cases of the Eastern
Church (e.g., St. Eusebius) as well as the more recent cases of Cardinals Wojtyla
and Slipyj behind the Iron Curtain.
[4] Fr. Gleize, “We Owe to Pius XII Important Clarifications
on the Nature of the Episcopate,” No. 19, September 22, 2022, www.sspx.org.
[5] Pius
IX acknowledges that the Holy See has “moderated the exercise” of this power of
the Primacy by allowing, for example, “synods of bishops” to nominate bishops
and recommend suitable men for the episcopate, but this delegation of authority
always rests upon St. Peter and never against his will. Quartus
Supra, no. 30.
[6] Ad
Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958, No. 47.
[7]
First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870, no. 2.
[8]
Ibid., no. 4.
[9] Quartus
Supra, January 6, 1873, no. 13.
[10] Nota sulla
scommunica per scisma in cui incorrono gli aderenti al movimento del Vescovo
Marcel Lefebvre, allegato al Prot. N. Protocol 5233/9624 August 1996, Communicationes,
29(2) [1997].
[11] Fr.
Gleize, “We Owe to Pius XII Important Clarifications on the Nature of the
Episcopate,” No. 22.
[12] See
Summa Theologiae, IIIa, q.82, a.1 and IV Sent. d.25, q.1, a.2.
[13]
Trent, Session 23, chapter 4; Acts 20:28.
[14] Fr. Gleize, “We Owe to Pius
XII Important Clarifications on the Nature of the Episcopate,” No. 19.
[15] Lefebvre
letter to Fr. Schmidberger, January 15, 1991.
[16] Fellay,
“Ordinances concerning the powers and
faculties enjoyed by the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X,”
1997; see also Cor Unum, No. 61, pp. 33-46.
[17]
Ibid., See also www.thetraditionalcatholicfaith.blogspot.com/2010/12/canon ical-tribunals-of-sspx.html.
[18] Legitimacy and Status of our Matrimonial Tribunals –
Status Questionis, Canonical session at Econe, August 24, 1998.
[19]
Touching the Sacrament of Matrimony, Session 24, canon 12.
[20]
Bishop
Fellay, “Ordinances concerning the powers and faculties enjoyed by the members
of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X,” 1997, 79-page pamphlet.
[21]
Ibid.
[22]
Ibid.
[23]
Ibid.
[24]
Fellay also refers to SSPX bishops as “auxiliary bishops,” which is false.
Auxiliary bishops have habitual jurisdiction that has been delegated to them by
a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, which is certainly not the case with the
Society bishops.
[25]
Legitimacy and Status of our Matrimonial Tribunals – Status Questionis,
Canonical session at Econe, August 24, 1998.
[26]
Ibid.
[27]
As Fr. Gleize concedes: “The power of
jurisdiction is communicated ‘only’ through the Pope…” and “The power of
jurisdiction must be communicated by the will of the Pope alone…” Gleize, no.
11.
[28]
Gleize, no. 19.
[29]
Ibid., no. 20.
[30]
Ibid.
[31] Pius
IX, Quartus Supra, no. 35.
[32] Ibid.,
no. 29.
[33] Ibid.,
No. 33.
[34]
Ibid., No. 30.
[35]
Ibid., 28.
[36]
Ibid., 29.
[37]
Pius IX, Quartus Supra, no. 31.
[38]
Pius VI, Charitas, April 13, 1791, no. 10.
[39]
Trent, Session 23, On the Sacrament of Orders, chapter 4, canon 7.
[40]
Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis, no. 47.
[41]
Ibid., no. 48. For example, in connection with the schismatic episcopal
consecrations of the Old Catholic movement against the Pope’s will, Pope Pius
IX declared: “We have been undeservingly placed on this supreme seat of Peter
to preserve the Catholic faith and the unity of the universal Church. Therefore,
following the custom and example of Our Predecessors and of holy
legislation, by the power granted to Us from heaven, We declare the
election of the said Joseph Hubert Reinkens, performed against the sanctions of
the holy canons to be illicit, null, and void. We furthermore declare his
consecration sacrilegious. Therefore, by the authority of Almighty God, We
excommunicate and hold as anathema Joseph Hubert himself and all those who
attempted to choose him, and who aided in his sacrilegious consecration. We
additionally excommunicate whoever has adhered to them and belonging to
their party has furnished help, favor, aid, or consent. We declare,
proclaim, and command that they are separated from the communion of the Church.”
Etsi Multa, November 21, 1873, no. 26.
[42]
Ibid., no. 41.
[43]
Ibid., no. 42.
[44]
Ibid., no. 20.
[45]
Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, August 24,
1996, no. 3.
[46] The
full study of the commission of priests, who left the SSPX to found the
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, is found in “A Study on Episcopal Consecrations
Against the Will of the Pope – Applied to the Consecrations of 30th
June 1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,” A Theological Essay by Members of the
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter under the direction of Fr. Joseph Bisig,
F.S.S.P.
[47]
Ibid.
[48] Quartus
Supra, no. 13.
[49]
Pius IX, Etsi Multa, November 21, 1873, no. 22.
