The SSPX Pats itself on the Back
for Delaying
its Next Schismatic Act
A Response
to a Recent Sermon by Fr. Paul Robinson
Mr. John Salza, O.P.
November A.D. 2024
The hits keep coming. In a recent
sermon, Fr. Paul Robinson said that the SSPX has been “respectful to the office
of the Papacy” and “prudent”[1]
for waiting to commit its next round of schismatic episcopal consecrations, all
the while affirming its intention to do so again, without regard to possible
opposition by the Roman Pontiff. You read that correctly.
In other words, Fr. Robinson thinks the SSPX gets a pat on
the back for temporarily refraining, during the past decades, from performing
one of the worst acts of schism possible (usurping a divine right that belongs
to the Pope alone), even though the SSPX does intend to perform the schismatic
act again in the future, if necessary. It’s like saying, “Hey, I murdered
someone in the past; I haven’t murdered anyone in a while; but I do intend to
murder someone again. Aren’t I a good guy!?” The scary thing is that Fr.
Robinson actually appears to believe what he says.
It is difficult to believe that Fr.
Robinson seeks credit for the SSPX in delaying its next “rejection of the Roman
Primacy” (in the words of Pope John Paul II) in selecting and consecrating
bishops against the will of the Pope (assuming the Pope does not approve them).
In Fr. Robinson’s mind, the fact that the Society has not consecrated a bishop
against the will of the Pope for 36 years proves the SSPX is not schismatic,
even though Pope John Paul II formally declared the 1988 consecrations to be an
act of schism and the SSPX to be a schismatic movement (affirmed by Popes
Benedict XVI and Francis); and, further, the doctrinal positions of the SSPX in
2024 are identical to what they were in 1988.
Fr. Robinson says: “I hope the faithful are edified by this.
Look at how respectful the SSPX has been in not consecrating more bishops
during this time…this clearly shows the SSPX does not have a schismatic
mentality.” The SSPX is “respectful” for delaying its next schismatic departure
from divine law? The SSPX does not have
a “schismatic mentality” in spite of the fact that every one of its “chapels” was
uncanonically and illicitly established against the will of the local bishop,
and it is now planning another round of episcopal consecrations against the
will of the Pope? Is Fr. Robinson serious? Unfortunately, he is.
Note well that Fr. Robinson is clear that the SSPX will again
carry out episcopal consecrations against the will of the Pope, if necessary,
which he also concedes will subject the bishops to automatic excommunication
(which is not only a matter of canon law, but also the divine law of Jesus
Christ, who conferred the right to (a) select, (b) consecrate and (c) and
appoint, or send bishops upon the Pope alone). After claiming his organization
does not have a schismatic mentality, Robinson says, in the next breath: “It
[illicit consecrations] will have to happen at some time in the future, I can
definitely say that.” He also doubles down and says: “What if Rome says no like
they did in 1988, then of course the SSPX would still have to go ahead
and consecrate bishops.” Yes, the SSPX admits that it is willing to violate
divine law and usurp a right that belongs to the Pope alone, once again, to
save and perpetuate its sect.
Also bizarre is Fr. Robinson’s claim that the SSPX has
deferred its next round of schismatic consecrations because they are not
Sedevacantists. What? In his words: “We haven’t consecrated more bishops
because we’re not Sedevacantists.” What in the world does that mean? Does that
mean the SSPX clergy were Sedevacantists when they consecrated bishops in 1988
and 1991, but now are non-Sedevacantists while they wait to do the next round?
And then do they become Sedevacantists again when they perform their next schismatic
consecrations? And does that make the Old Catholics Sedevacantists, who were
excommunicated by Pope Pius IX for their schismatic consecrations, even though
they too mention Pope Francis in the canon? And how is the Old Catholics’
consecration of a single bishop (Joseph Hubert Reinkens in 1873) less
“Sedevacantist” or “schismatic” than the Society’s illicit consecration of four
bishops in 1988 and a fifth one in 1991?
Also, just how different are the Sedevacantist and other “independent” episcopal consecrations from SSPX consecrations, since both are done illicitly and against the will of the Roman Pontiff, in order to perpetuate sects that are set up in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church? Indeed, when “Resistance” bishops perform their schismatic episcopal consecrations, they use the same phony “apostolic mandate” that Lefebvre used in 1988. For example, here is the mandatum that was read at Bp. Williamson’s consecration of Bp. Faure, in 2015, which intended to preserve the “Resistance” sect:
We have a Mandate to consecrate from
the Roman Church which in its fidelity to Sacred Tradition received from the
Apostles commands us to hand down faithfully that Sacred Tradition – namely the
Deposit of the Faith – to all men by reason of their duty to save their souls.
We have this Mandate from the Roman Church, always faithful to the Holy Tradition which She has received from the Holy Apostles. This Holy Tradition is the Deposit of Faith which the Church orders us to faithfully transmit to all men for the salvation of their souls.
As one can see,
these “Mandates” are essentially identical, as are all the bogus “mandates”
used by the consecrating bishops of the independent sects. Also identical is
the fact that none of these sects, which include the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI,
Resistance and other independent groups actually had a written mandate from the
Holy See, much less a canonical mission from the Church. Fr. Robinson’s attempt
to distinguish the SSPX from Sedevacantists in relation to their episcopal
consecrations is nonsensical. It’s nothing but a smoke screen, since the
chapels of the SSPX are no less illicit and separated from the dioceses in
which they operate, than are the Sedevacantist heretics and other independent
sects.
In a short 20 minutes, Fr. Robinson demonstrated that he and
the SSPX reject some of the most fundamental truths of divine law, established
by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself when He founded His Church. Let us examine Fr.
Robinson’s errors in more depth, which are ultimately the errors of Robinson’s
actual rule of faith, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre.
Error #1: He Rejects the Divine Law on
Juridical Mission
Straight from the SSPX playbook, Fr. Robinson justifies the
schismatic 1988 and 1991 consecrations, as well as the intended future
consecrations (without regard to the Pope’s permission) on the grounds of the alleged
evils of the New Mass and Vatican II. Because Robinson attributes the loss of
faith in our times to the New Mass and Vatican II, he believes the Society can
operate without a canonical mission from the Pope (which is a requirement of
divine law), by setting up rival altars against the true bishops of the Church.
Is Fr. Robinson not aware that the Society’s position is the
same as that of the Old Catholics of recent memory, whom the SSPX would quickly
label schismatics? Just as the Old Catholics rejected the definition of
infallibility of Vatican I and split off to consecrate their own bishops “to
preserve the hierarchy and the true faith,” so the SSPX has done exactly the
same, by rejecting the teachings of Vatican II, and consecrating their own
bishops for the same reason. History, indeed, repeats itself.
It is one thing to criticize the way in which the Novus Ordo
is celebrated in certain parishes (we acknowledge and abhor any kind of
liturgical abuse). But it is quite another to condemn the rite itself,
which was approved by the Supreme Authority and is celebrated throughout 99.9
percent of the Latin Church. To be clear, Fr. Robinson is not criticizing
instances of liturgical abuse, but rather the 1969 Missal itself, which in the
sermon he said is the “cause of the loss of souls,” is “not sufficiently nourishing”
and which was created “to please those of non-Catholic religions” (regarding
this last quote, we previously demonstrated to Fr. Robinson in private
correspondence that this is not actually what Fr. Bugnini said, but Fr.
Robinson continues to say it anyway; just like he and the SSPX falsely
attribute the “Ottaviani Intervention” to Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani).
It is difficult to believe that Robinson’s assessment of the Roman Missal does not come under the anathema of the Council of Trent:
If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema.[2]
Fr. Robinson’s assertions about Vatican
II are equally unfortunate. He claims that ecumenism, religious liberty, and
collegiality are errors which also justify the SSPX’s “mission.” As with the
New Mass, the SSPX’s private interpretations of Magisterial pronouncements (and
whose interpretations are erroneous in themselves, as we have proven in other
articles) are entirely irrelevant to the question of canonical mission! The
private judgment of SSPX clergy about a particular Missal or certain statements
of an ecumenical council does not allow such clergy to circumvent the divine
law, hang their own shingle and begin operating their own “mission” in
opposition to the juridical mission that Christ gave His Church. The
justification is utterly absurd. Again, this is exactly what the Old Catholics
claimed after Vatican I, and the Protestants (who were also Sedevacantists)
claimed up to and after the Council of Trent.
As we have explained elsewhere, the necessity of a bishop to
have “mission” from the Pope is a matter of the divine law of Jesus Christ.
Just as God the Father sends Christ, so Christ sends the Apostles in His Great
“Commission” (Mt 28:18-20). And just as Christ sends the Apostles, so the Vicar
of Christ sends the successors of the Apostles (who send their priests), so
that Christ’s mission (of teaching, sanctifying and governing) can be carried
out through the sacred priesthood, according to His will.
Pope Pius XII teaches that bishops without canonical mission have no authority to even teach in the Church, much less administer the sacraments or exercise powers of governance:
Granted this exception, it follows that bishops who have been
neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary,
have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy
no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops
only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical
Letter Mystici Corporis…[3]
Pope Pius XII went on to harshly condemn
those validly consecrated bishops who exercise the power of Holy Orders without
a canonical mission, likening them to “thieves and robbers” in the words of Our
Lord: “Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed
by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the
consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal
and sacrilegious. 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.’”[4] The Council of Trent anathematizes
anyone who would call such bishops lawful ministers, since they engage in
unlawful (or, as Pius XII said, “criminal and sacrilegious”) activity: “If
anyone saith 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; let him be anathema.”[5]
The SSPX’s pat answer (it never fails) to
their opponents on its lack of mission is that “we don’t understand the nature
of the crisis!” The problem with that argument is that one’s assessment of the
cause and nature of the crisis is subjective, while the requirement to have
juridical mission from the Roman Pontiff is a truth of divine law, which is objective,
non-negotiable, and without exceptions. The problem is not that others
don’t understand the nature of the crisis; it is rather that the SSPX doesn’t
understand the nature of the Church. No
one in the history of the Catholic Church has ever licitly carried out a
mission in opposition to the Pope and College of Bishops, nor can such a thing
ever happen. When clergy like Fr.
Robinson concede that they do not have an ordinary mission from the Vicar of
Christ, but nevertheless claim to have a right to exercise their
priesthood, the Church does not ask them whether they believe there is a
crisis that justifies their ministry.
Rather,
the Church requires them to prove they have an extraordinary mission (which
means they have been sent directly by Christ). And, as we have demonstrated
in other articles, for a minister to prove he has an extraordinary mission, the
Church has always required him to have miracles (that is, canonically
approved miracles). Thus, a cleric lawfully functions as a priest if he either
has ordinary mission (canonically sent by Church authority) or an extraordinary
mission (sent by Christ directly), proven by the divine testimony of miracles.
If he
has no miracles (and none of the SSPX clergy, each and all, including Fr. Paul
Robinson, have any, nor do they claim to), his acts (except those permitted by
ecclesiastical law) are illicit (illegal) and the Church holds him to be an antichrist
and to be shunned by the faithful. Those who receive his sacraments participate
in his sin and are guilty of sacrilege. Again, a cleric’s subjective assessment
of a crisis is not relevant to the objective question of whether he has
miracles to prove he has been sent directly by Christ through an extraordinary mission.
As Cardinal Billot wrote about those clergy who administer the
sacraments without canonical mission:
This introduction shows, first, that
legitimate dispensation of the sacraments can only come from the Catholic
Church, so that anyone who does not have
a mission from her, by that very fact administers illicitly, and anyone
who by receiving the sacrament communicates with the sin of the minister receives
sacrilegiously.”; “But the
sacraments are the property of Christ. Hence they can be legitimately dispensed
only by those who have a mission from Christ, i.e. those to whom
the apostolic mission has been transmitted.[6]
Error #2: He Rejects the Divine Law on
the Roman Primacy
As with juridical mission, Fr. Robinson also fails to
understand that the right to nominate, select, consecrate and send bishops
belongs to the Roman Pontiff alone as a matter of divine law, and that this
right can never be usurped for any reason, much less for subjective (and
erroneous) interpretations of Magisterial statements by acephalous clergy, no
matter how correct the SSPX thinks its interpretations are (and they are not;
just see our articles on Collegiality as one example). This usurpation of a divine
right of the Roman Primacy is intrinsically schismatic, because it attacks the
very foundation of the Church.
We see this
doctrine of the Roman Primacy 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.”[7] 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. One cannot join the College against the will of the head of the
College. Nor can anyone be licitly consecrated without title to an
office that was established and is recognized by the Church, of which the SSPX
has none.
Both
the right to choose the bishop (the first step) and then consecrate (second
step) and send the bishop (third 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). 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.”[8]
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.”[9]
Blessed Pius IX underscores this is
a matter of divine revelation 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.”[10]
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.”[11]
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. 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.”[12]
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.”[13]
Notice that Trent makes a distinction between those who are “rightly ordained”
and those who are “sent.” “Rightly ordained” refers to those ordained in accord
with the Church’s existing law, 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, and
the existing law promulgated by his authority. 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.”[14]
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.”[15]
In his sermon, Fr. Robinson told his flock that “you only consecrate bishops against the will of the Pope if
you have a very serious reason.” Fr. Robinson could not be more wrong, since
there is never a “serious enough reason” that justifies usurping a divine right
that belongs to the Pope alone. 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.”[16]
Hence, Fr. Robinson’s appeals to “crisis” and “necessity” due
to the “loss of faith” in the Church – even if these states are objectively
true – do not, and can never, justify the usurpation of a divine right that
belongs to the Pope alone. Divine law
foresees all things, including a spiritual crisis and loss of faith, and if the
Church that Christ divinely established no longer possesses the means necessary
to save souls during a crisis, then that Church
has defected,
and Christ’s Promises have failed (which is heresy).
Error #3: He Misunderstands the Nature
of the Episcopate
In the sermon, Fr. Robinson also attempts to explain away
Abp. Lefebvre’s schismatic consecrations by referring to Lefebvre’s (heretical)
understanding of the episcopate, in which he thought he could bifurcate the
office of bishop by conferring only the power of orders, but not of
jurisdiction. Says Robinson: “he (Lefebvre) understood he had the power to give
them the power of sanctifying, but not the power of ruling and governing.” And
again: “I am not wanting to give them this power of jurisdiction; I am not
pretending to give them this power of jurisdiction.”
There are two insurmountable problems with Fr. Robinson’s
claims. First, 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 Fr. Robinson claims, Lefebvre only wanted to
give his bishops “the power of sanctifying,” 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. St. Thomas explains
this beautifully by stating 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).[17] As the Council of Trent affirmed what has
been divinely revealed by God, the bishops have been “placed by the Holy Ghost to
rule the Church of God.”[18]
Second, Fr. Robinson’s claims about Lefebvre’s intentions
contradict the very words of Lefebvre himself, as well as Robinson’s former
superior Bp. Fellay, and the late Bp. Tissier as well. 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.
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-Ã -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.”[19]
The SSPX has indeed erected a tribunal that acts as a “substitute
authority” for the legitimate tribunals of the Catholic Church, which it calls
the ”St. Charles Borromeo Canonical Commission.” According to Bp. 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.[20]
The Society’s schismatic tribunal is specifically
designed to operate as a competing authority 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.”[21] 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.”[22] A clearer case of assuming the power of jurisdiction against
legitimate authority can hardly be imagined. No “schismatic mentality”?
Hence, notwithstanding Fr. Robinson’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.” Like his
rejection of the Church’s teaching on juridical mission and the Roman Primacy, Lefebvre’s
usurpation of the authority to judge marriage cases by true ecclesiastical
judges is also anathematized by the Council of Trent which declared: “If
anyone shall say that matrimonial causes do not concern ecclesiastical judges,
let him be anathema.”[23]
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 Bp. 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.”[24]
Notice
that 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, Bp. 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.”[25]
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.”[26]
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…”[27] 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.[28]
Bp.
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.”[29]
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.”[30]
Thus,
while Fr. Robinson claims that Abp. Lefebvre “did not pretend to give them (the
bishops) the power of jurisdiction,” that is exactly what Lefebvre intended,
and what Robinson’s superiors have affirmed. In Lefebvre’s own words, the SSPX
needed to set up “substitute authorities” to oppose the legitimate diocesan
tribunals. In Fellay’s words, SSPX
bishops have “ordinary episcopal jurisdiction.” In Tissier’s words, the SSPX
tribunal renders “true verdicts” which “replace” those of the Holy See. Does
Fr. Robinson not know what Lefebvre and his superiors actually teach? Or is he
intentionally misleading his flock?
Error #4: He Falsely Claims “Rome” Refused
the SSPX a Bishop
Finally, we close with Fr. Robinson’s claim in his sermon that Rome (meaning “the Pope”) “should have given Archbishop Lefebvre permission to consecrate a bishop but they did not.”[31] This is actually not an error, but an outright falsehood. We wonder why the SSPX has to misrepresent facts that are common knowledge and easily verified. As even the Society will admit, Abp. Lefebvre signed the May 5, 1988 Protocol with the Holy See, in which both parties agreed to the Pope approving a bishop for the SSPX. All the correspondence is available on SSPX websites. From the May 5, 1988 Protocol of Accord that Lefebvre signed, we read:
In
view of the particular situation of the Society (cf. infra):
the ordination of a member of the Society as a bishop, who, among
other duties, would also be able to proceed with ordinations…
This is why, in the framework of the doctrinal and canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from within the Society, presented by Archbishop Lefebvre.
As we all know, even though Lefebvre agreed in writing to the
Holy See’s offer of a bishop for the SSPX, he dishonored his signature and
reneged the very next day, because “upon reflection,” he did not want to
be “reabsorbed into the Conciliar Church” [32] (which can only refer to the Roman Catholic
Church, because there are not two Churches). Lefebvre even told Pope John Paul
II that he could no longer cooperate (NB: submit to divine law) with “Rome” (NB:
the Vicar of Christ) because “Rome” is engaged “in the destruction of our
Faith” and “infested with Modernism,”[33]
among other things.
Now, please consider this, dear reader. For 13 years (from 1975 to 1988), Abp. Lefebvre had expressly and publicly refused submission to the Holy Father, which is the definition of schism. This is evidenced by, inter alia, the following actions. Lefebvre:
- ·
disregarded warnings and requests to retract his declaration to
continue his apostolate
- ·
disregarded the juridic effects of lawful suppression
- ·
disregarded warnings not to ordain priests without permission
- ·
ordained priests without permission
- ·
disregarded the Church’s command to repair the damage from his
illicit ordinations
- ·
sent priests to minister without incardination
- ·
sent priests to minister who are under censure
- ·
ignored suspension from the exercise of Orders
- ·
preached in dioceses without permission of the local bishops
- ·
publicly promoted hostility to the Pope and the Holy See
- ·
publicly propagated false doctrines
- ·
threatened the Pope with illicit consecrations of bishops
- · disregarded the Pope’s warning that consecrations would be a schismatic act
Now, even in the absence of the foregoing actions, Pope John
Paul II would not have offended justice by refusing Lefebvre a bishop. After
all, the Society was lawfully suppressed by Pope Paul VI in 1975, and even
without the suppression, the Society’s provisional ad experimentum
status as a Lay Association would have expired in 1976 (a term that Lefebvre
himself agreed to).
Nevertheless, notwithstanding these 13 years of formal
disobedience, Pope John II still attempted to bring Lefebvre and his
Society into the Church, which included offering the Society a canonical
mission and a bishop. And even after Lefebvre breached his May 5, 1988 agreement
with the Pope, accused him of destroying the Church, threatened to usurp the
Pope’s divine right to select a bishop, and disregarded the censure of
excommunication, John Paul II still…yes, still! offered him a bishop to
perpetuate his Society (one wonders why, after Lefebvre all but spit in the
Pope’s face; when you read all the correspondence, you can clearly see the
Pope’s heroic virtue of charity in dealing with Lefebvre).
In the final correspondence with Cardinal Ratzinger, after all that had taken place, we see that the Pope’s original offer of a bishop (with which Lefebvre originally agreed) still stood. In fact, the Holy Father was willing to “accelerate the usual process” of nominating bishops so that the consecration of the bishop could be expedited. In Ratzinger’s May 30, 1988 letter to Lefebvre, we read (frankly, with amazement):
What Pope John Paul II asked of Lefebvre was simply to provide a greater number of candidates from which the Pope could make his selection (again, which is the Pope’s right by divine law). From the same letter, we read:
From the practical point of view this requires that you present without delay to the Holy See a greater number of dossiers on possible candidates, to allow him to freely choose a candidate who corresponds to the profile envisaged in the accords and at the same time the general criteria of aptitude which the Church maintains for the appointment of bishops.
Moreover, in the letter Cd. Ratzinger attempted to appeal to Lefebvre’s reason (since the theology wasn’t working) on just how benevolent John Paul II had been toward him and the Society, and even affirmed the reconciliation that the Pope wanted was finally in sight:
You must have confidence in the Holy Father, whose goodness and understanding he has shown in your regard and with regard to the Society, and which constitutes the best guarantee for the future. Finally, you must—as must we all—have confidence in the Lord, who has allowed the way of reconciliation to be opened as it is open today, the conclusion of which is now in sight.
Unfortunately, Abp. Lefebvre refused
this most simple request of providing additional candidates for the Pope’s
consideration and final approval, and consummated his years of rebellion with his
gravest attack on the Roman Primacy. Lefebvre, who touted himself to be a man
of Tradition, ended by rejecting Tradition and the divine law in favor of
schism. Like the Old Catholics a century before, Lefebvre proceeded with his
schismatic consecrations of bishops and was excommunicated for the schismatic
act. Most sadly, Lefebvre did not persevere in the virtues, by abandoning
“confidence in the Lord,” Who did open the door to reconciliation before
Lefebvre shut it closed.
As we can see, Fr. Robinson not only makes grave errors in
ecclesiology, but also commits errors of fact. Perhaps Fr. Robinson’s statement
in the sermon that the SSPX will proceed with future consecrations against the
Pope’s will “because the situation as it was in 1988 is no different than in
2024” is the most ridiculous statement of all, humanly speaking.
Fr. Robinson himself concedes that there are countless more
Traditional Masses (1962 Missal) in the Latin Church today than there were in
1988 (although he falsely attributes this to Lefebvre). Indeed, Robinson
acknowledges the existence of Church-approved traditional societies which are
flourishing today, and which didn’t exist in 1988 (e.g., FSSP, ICK) who offer
the Traditional Mass. And we can also point to other dioceses (my Archdiocese
of Milwaukee is one of them) who have the Traditional Mass at regular parishes.
Thus, it is objectively false for Robinson to state that today is “no
different” than 1988. It clearly is not.
And here is where the Society’s “schismatic mentality” (which Robinson disclaims but expressly adheres to) comes into full focus, if it hasn’t already. Says Fr. Robinson:
It is true there are other traditional organizations, but their existence does not remove the need for souls to have SSPX bishops. They are not allowed to oppose the New Mass. They are not allowed to speak against the errors of Vatican II. They are supposed to ignore them or finds some way to reconcile them with tradition.
In fidelity to its founder, Fr. Robinson and the SSPX’s
position was and continues to be “Us versus the Catholic Church.” It is that
simple. And note well that the Protocol the Holy See offered to the SSPX (when
Bp. Fellay was Superior General) in January 2012 gave the Society the freedom
to critique the council and its reforms, so long as it recognized the council’s
teachings and the New Mass as legitimately promulgated, and agreed to the 1989
Profession of Faith. Unfortunately, the SSPX continued its refusal of
submission to the Holy Father and the schism continued.
In his sermon, Fr. Robinson went on to say that the former
Ecclesia Dei groups, which have canonical mission and are in hierarchical
communion with the Pope, are nevertheless disadvantaged because “they have to
rely upon the permission of the bishop.” In other words, because these
communities are Catholic (they are in submission to the Pope and Bishops
according to the divine constitution of the Church and the will of Christ),
they cannot be trusted.
As gracious as Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis
(especially Francis!) have been toward the Society, it seems that the Society
wishes to continue operating independently of the Roman Catholic Church. Like
all schismatics, the SSPX claims it doesn’t need the Pope’s approval for future
consecrations, and would publicly state the same, even if they were to be given
approval for more bishops (just like they falsely claimed they didn’t need
faculties from the Pope for confessions and marriages). Perhaps that attitude
(or “schismatic mentality”) will continue to thwart the possibility of a future
reconciliation.
From this author’s perspective, because the theological
arguments of the SSPX to justify its separation from the Church are so totally
lacking in merit, it seems as if other factors are actually driving its
decision to remain separated. While this is only speculation (although many
hold this view), the main factor appears to be the massive wealth the Society
has accumulated (in cash, investments and real estate) throughout the world, and
the unwillingness to turn over its assets to the Holy See to become part of the
Catholic Church. As they say, “follow the money.” Hence, while we are skeptical
that the Society, as an entity, will ever place itself under the governance of
the Church, we pray that those many clergy within the SSPX of good faith will
see the problems which keep it outside the ark of salvation, respond to the
actual graces God wills for them, and leave the schism to serve Our Lord Jesus
Christ in the Church He founded.
[1]
For
this and all subsequent quotations from this sermon, see audio post by The
Realist Guide, October 21, 2024, SSPX Bishops, Sermon by Fr.
Paul Robinson, SSPX
[2]
Session 22, canon 7.
[3] Pius
XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis, No. 39 (June 29, 1958).
[4]
Ibid., Nos 41-42 (emphasis added).
[5]
Council of Trent, On the Sacrament of Orders, Session 23, Canon VI (July 15,
1563).
[6]
Billot on Sacraments and Mission, https://archive.org/details /DeMembris Ecclesiae.
[7] Ibid.,
no. 29.
[8] Ibid.,
No. 33.
[9]
Ibid., No. 30.
[10]
Ibid., 29.
[11] Pius
IX, Quartus Supra, no. 31.
[12] Pius
VI, Charitas, April 13, 1791, no. 10.
[13]
Trent, Session 23, On the Sacrament of Orders, chapter 4, canon 7.
[14] Pius
XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis, no. 47.
[15]
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.
[16] 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].
[17] See Summa
Theologiae, IIIa, q.82, a.1 and IV Sent. d.25, q.1, a.2.
[18]
Trent, Session 23, chapter 4; Acts 20:28.
[19]
Lefebvre letter to Fr. Schmidberger, January 15, 1991.
[20] 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.
[21]
Ibid., See also www.thetraditionalcatholicfaith.blogspot.com/2010/12/canon ical-tribunals-of-sspx.html.
[22] Legitimacy and Status of our Matrimonial Tribunals –
Status Questionis, Canonical session at Econe, August 24, 1998.
[23]
Touching the Sacrament of Matrimony, Session 24, canon 12.
[24]
Bishop Fellay, “Ordinances concerning the powers and faculties enjoyed
by the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X,” 1997, 79-page
pamphlet.
[25]
Ibid.
[26]
Ibid.
[27]
Ibid.
[28]
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.
[29]
Legitimacy and Status of our Matrimonial Tribunals – Status Questionis,
Canonical session at Econe, August 24, 1998.
[30]
Ibid.
[31] At
15.34.
[32]
Lefebvre’s letter to Ratzinger, May 24, 1988.
[33]
Lefebvre’s letter to John Paul II, June 2, 1988.
