by Pete Vere
Click here to read An Aid to Understanding 'My Journey Out of the Lefebvre Schism'
If you’re a Catholic who’s faithful to the Church’s teaching Magisterium, you’ve probably met up with followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s 1988 schism, known as the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). They’re filled with devotion to the Blessed Mother, extremely conservative with regard to most moral issues afflicting the Western world today, and quite reverent before the Blessed Sacrament during their old Latin liturgies. In short, on the surface, adherents to Archbishop Lefebvre’s schism appear to be devout Catholics
It’s easy to
sympathize with these folks since most of them have joined the
SSPX after being scandalized by contemporary abuses in doctrine
and liturgy in some of our Catholic churches in North America. In
fact, it was precisely because of such sympathies, as well as the
beauty of the Tridentine Mass, that I found myself frequenting
SSPX chapels about eight years ago. Like most SSPX adherents, at
the time I thought that my separation from Rome was merely
temporary.
I failed to realize, however, that at the root of every schism,
as the present Code of Canon Law explains, “is the
withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion
with the members of the Church subject to him” (Can. 751).
Such ruptures from communion with the Church, the Catechism of
the Catholic Church points out, “wound the unity of
Christ’s Body” (CCC 817). For that reason, at the heart
of my journey back to full communion with Rome lay many questions
about the unity of the Church as an institution founded by
Christ.
What follows is a practical reflection on questions concerning
Catholic Tradition that troubled my conscience during my sojourn
in the SSPX schism. The answers to these questions eventually led
me to conclude that Sacred Tradition can only be fully actualized
in communion with Rome. My conclusions draw upon eight years of
personal experience within the Traditionalist Movement — the
last five after being reconciled to Rome. In addition, during the
last two years I’ve pursued a licentiate in canon law from
the Church, studies that have culminated in the publication of a
major research paper entitled “A Canonical History of
Archbishop Lefebvre’s Schism.” Here’s a brief
account of what I learned that led to my reconciliation with
Rome.
Who Was Archbishop Lefebvre?
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was ordained a Spiritan Missionary
and later became the first Archbishop of Dakar, Africa. In this
capacity he founded many missionary dioceses in Africa, and in
fact under Pope Pius XII he was appointed the papal legate to
French-speaking Africa.
Before retiring in Rome just after the Second Vatican Council, he
also served as Superior General of Spiritan Missionaries.
Certain problems, however, began to arise in the French
seminaries during this time, and many young seminarians became
disenchanted by the confusion that had arisen within their
program of formation. Thus they approached Archbishop Lefebvre in
1970 and coaxed him out of retirement in Rome. Concerned with the
lack of discipline that had overtaken many French seminaries and
the many doctrinal weaknesses in the formation program of
seminarians, in 1969 Lefebvre founded a House of Studies, which
soon evolved into both a seminary and his Priestly Society of St.
Pius X (SSPX).
Both these institutions received canonical approval on an
experimental basis near Econe, Switzerland. However,
Lefebvre’s continued use of the Tridentine Mass eventually
became an issue with the Vatican. By 1974 the controversy had
become so heated that Lefebvre made a famous declaration within
Traditionalist circles calling into question the validity and
orthodoxy of the Second Vatican Council.
Finding this declaration problematical, Pope Paul VI canonically
suppressed the SSPX and its seminary in 1975. Yet Lefebvre
ignored the canonical suppression and began illicitly ordaining
his seminarians to holy orders, an action which led to the
suspension of his faculties later on in the same year. Over the
next thirteen years, Lefebvre continued to operate illicitly and
expand the SSPX, while negotiations continued on and off again
with Rome.
Relations between Rome and the SSPX remained rather static until
May 5, 1988. On this day, agreement was finally reached between
the SSPX and Rome, reconciling the SSPX to the Church. The
protocol agreement was signed by both Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
and Archbishop Lefebvre. Neverthless, a few days afterwards,
Archbishop Lefebvre retracted his signature and announced his
intention to consecrate bishops without Rome’s permission.
On June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre proceeded with this
intention in violation of canon law, incurring an automatic
excommunication under the law. The following day, Cardinal
Bernadin Gantin of the Congregation of Bishops declared
Lefebvre’s excommunication. In a papal motu proprio on July
2, 1988, the Holy Father John Paul II also confirmed
Lefebvre’s excommunication for schism and for having
consecrated bishops despite the Holy See’s warnings not to
do so.
Sadly, Lefebvre passed away in Econe in March of 1991, without
having formally reconciled with the Church. Today, the SSPX
includes approximately four hundred priests in over twenty-seven
countries representing all five continents. Most estimates place
the number of adherents to Archbishop Lefebvre’s schism at
the one million mark.
Pope St. Pius V and Quo Primum
Tempore
The first argument I ever encountered by an SSPX apologist, in
fact the very argument that led me into their schism, was a
citation of Pope St. Pius V’s sixteenth-century papal bull
Quo Primum Tempore. In a nutshell, the SSPX proponent claimed
that St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Mass in perpetuity,
meaning for all time. The SSPX claimed — and I found the
claim convincing at the time — that every priest has the
right to use the Roman Missal codified by St. Pius V in Quo
Primum Tempore, and that this right cannot be taken away from
him.
As I later discovered, however, the problem with the Quo Primum
Tempore argument is a failure to take into account canonical
Tradition. First, this argument does not distinguish between the
doctrine and the discipline of the Catholic Church. Yet that
distinction is critical.
Briefly put, a dogma is a doctrine the Church declares with
certitude to be infallible. Take, for example, the dogma of the
Blessed Mother’s assumption into heaven. Pope Pius XII
didn’t suddenly declare it as a new truth in 1950 that Mary
was assumed into heaven; this truth, after all, had come into
existence nearly two millennia before when Mary was assumed.
Rather, the pope declared this dogma because the Church had come
to know for certain Mary that was assumed into heaven.
In essence, the Holy See did not
agree with Lefebvre’s analysis of the situation in the
Catholic Church, namely that a sufficient emergency existed to
warrant the consecration of bishops without Rome’s approval.
This is an important point in resolving the dispute between
Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope John Paul II, for where there exists
a difference in interpreting the application of canon law, canon
16 states clearly: “Laws are authentically interpreted by
the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts
the power of authentic interpretation.”
In Lefebvre’s situation, he knew in advance that his
interpretation of canon law in this case was not acceptable to
the Roman Pontiff, who is the highest legislator. So even though
Lefebvre disagreed with the Roman Pontiff’s interpretation
of canon law, it nevertheless remained up to Pope John Paul II to
interpret that law authoritatively. Therefore, because the idea
of a state of necessity in Lefebvre’s circumstances was
rejected by Pope John Paul II, I came to realize that I could not
legitimately invoke the state of necessity canons in defense of
Lefebvre’s consecration of bishops without Rome’s
permission.
The Novus Ordo Missae:
Intrinsically Evil?
A common argument now put forward by the SSPX is that the revised
liturgy of Pope Paul VI is intrinsically evil, or at the least
poses a proximate danger to the Catholic faith. This would mean
that the post-Vatican II liturgy is in and of itself contrary to
the law of God. How individual Lefebvrites approach this issue
will often vary, but they typically insist that the new Mass
contains heresy, blasphemy or ambiguity. In resolving this
question, I came to the personal conclusion that Christ has a
sense of humor, since the same text from Catholic Tradition the
SSPX quotes in defense of this claim is the very text that
refutes it.
A preliminary observation is in order. The Mass has not changed
since Christ instituted this sacrament on the night before His
crucifixion. In essence, there is neither an “old” Mass
nor a “new” Mass, but only the Mass. In fact what
changed after the Second Vatican Council was not the Mass, but
the liturgy.
This means that while the “accidents” (to use a
classical theological term) differ somewhat between the
pre-Vatican II liturgy and the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI,
their essence remains the same: the Body, Blood, Soul and
Divinity of Jesus Christ transubstantiated into the Eucharist.
This central mystery of the Mass takes place regardless of
whether the priest celebrates according to the liturgical books
in use before the Second Vatican Council or according to the
liturgical books revised by Pope Paul VI. In fact, both sets of
liturgical books are usages of the same Roman liturgical rite.
When I was associated with the SSPX, to defend the claim that the
reformed liturgy is intrinsically evil I used to quote the
seventh canon on the Sacrifice of the Mass from the Council of
Trent. This canon states: “If anyone says that the
ceremonies, vestments and outward signs which the Catholic Church
makes use of in the celebration of Masses are incentives to
impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.”
Let’s look at this more closely. Since the definition of
intrinsic evil is “something which in and of itself is
evil,” we see from the Council of Trent that an approved
liturgy of the Church cannot be such. For something that is
intrinsically evil is naturally an incentive to impiety, while
the Council of Trent declares dogmatically that the approved
liturgical ceremonies of the Catholic Church cannot be incentives
to impiety.
But wait a second: Wasn’t the revised liturgy of Pope Paul
VI an approved liturgy of the Church? Of course! So according to
the Tradition of the Church as dogmatically defined at the
Ecumenical Council of Trent, I could only conclude that the
reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI cannot be an incentive to
impiety. It necessarily follows, then, that neither could it be
intrinsically evil. Thus in my defense of the schismatic position
I stood refuted by the very Catholic Tradition from the Council
of Trent that I was seeking to preserve through adherence to the
SSPX schism.
Illicit Consecration of
Bishops: An Act of Schism?
One argument commonly presented within SSPX circles is that
the act of consecrating bishops without papal permission is an
act of disobedience, but not an act of schism. Although I
didn’t give much thought to this argument, either before or
after my involvement in the SSPX, nevertheless it should be
addressed because it’s frequently made among schismatic
ranks. The SSPX folks generally claim that they have not
withdrawn subjection to the Roman Pontiff. Rather, they refuse
obedience in some matters.
We should reiterate here that canon 752 defines schism as
“the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from
communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
Notice that the canon does not distinguish between degrees of
withdrawal of submission to the Roman Pontiff. In other words, a
person need not completely withdraw submission to the Roman
Pontiff to enter into a state of schism. Rather, partial
withdrawal of obedience in certain matters — and
consecrating bishops without papal mandate is a serious matter
— remains an act through which a person withdraws submission
to the Roman Pontiff. In short, the Holy Father told Archbishop
Lefebvre not to consecrate bishops without Rome’s
permission, and Archbishop Lefebvre refused to submit.
I never paid this argument much attention during my time in the
SSPX chapels. But afterward I realized that the SSPX claim —
that they haven’t withdrawn submission to the Roman Pontiff,
but rather have merely temporarily suspended their obedience to
him in certain matters — could not be sustained by Catholic
Tradition. For such an act of disobedience in a serious matter
remains at least a temporary withdrawal of submission to the
Roman Pontiff. Therefore, with sufficient moral certitude I could
only conclude that Archbishop Lefebvre’s act of consecrating
bishops against Pope John Paul II’s stated wishes was an act
of schism according to canon law.
Pope Liberius
Probably the most common claim I came across within SSPX circles
was the claim that Pope Liberius (reigned A.D. 352-366) was a
heretic, sympathetic to Arianism, who falsely excommunicated St.
Athanasius. For this reason, the SSPX claims, Pope Liberius
became the first pope in the history of the Church not be
recognized as a saint. Of course, by analogy the SSPX considers
Archbishop Lefebvre a modern St. Athanasius and Pope John Paul II
a modern Pope Liberius.
Their argument is that if it happened once, it can happen again.
And yet, as our Lord showed me in a rather amusing fashion, such
claims have little basis in Catholic Tradition.
Convinced the SSPX claims pertaining to this situation were true,
I was reading my copy of Henri Denzinger’s Sources of
Catholic Dogma one day when I noticed that Denzinger listed Pope
Liberius as “St. Liberius.” To say I was surprised
would be an understatement — ironically enough, the SSPX had
sold me the particular edition of Denzinger I was reading, since
they held all subsequent editions as suspect. Yet this portion of
Denzinger clearly did not accord with what was being preached
from our local SSPX pulpit. So I simply dismissed this listing as
a probable typesetting error and continued reading.
A mere ten pages later, I came across a papal epistle authored by
Pope St. Anastasius subtitled “The Orthodoxy of Pope
Liberius.” In it, Pope St. Anastasius clearly states:
“The heretical African faction [of the Arian heresy] was not
able by any deception to introduce its baseness because, as we
believe, our God provided that that holy and untarnished faith be
not contaminated through any vicious blasphemy of slanderous men
— that faith which had been discussed and defended at the
meeting of the synod of Nicea by the holy men and bishops now
placed in the resting place of the saints” (see art. 93 of
the thirtieth edition).
So far, so good; God had clearly preserved the Church from
Arianism through the actions and prayer of holy men. But who were
these holy men, and how does this relate to Pope Liberius? I
wondered. To my surprise, Pope St. Anastasius answered the
question in the subsequent paragraph this way: “For this
faith those who were then esteemed as holy bishops gladly endured
exile, that is . . . Liberius, bishop of the Roman Church.”
I was stunned by this pope’s answer, for clearly there was a
contradiction here: Was I to believe Archbishop Lefebvre and his
followers as the authentic teaching from Catholic Tradition? Or
was I to believe the teaching of Anastasius in his papal epistle
Dat mihi plurimum — the claim of one who was a saint, a
pope, and a writer much closer to the time the Arian heresy took
place? When my local SSPX priest failed to provide an adequate
solution for this quandary, I could only accept the claim of Pope
St. Anastasius as the authentic voice of Catholic Tradition.
Traditional Rome vs. Modernist
Rome
The question of Rome eventually weighed in on my conscience,
as it should for anyone who leaves the Church. Given what
Catholic Tradition consistently teaches concerning faithfulness
to Rome, how could I justify my separation from the Roman
Pontiff? In fact, even five years after reconciling myself to
Rome, the question of communion with Rome and the local Bishop
remains the catalyst for much of my theological and canonical
exploration.
While I was with the SSPX, however, I accepted their solution to
this problem. The SSPX claimed that the questionable behavior of
the post-Vatican II popes had divided the faithful into two
camps. One camp, the institutional Church, was faithful to
contemporary Rome, which the SSPX claims has been infiltrated by
modernists and liberals. In the other camp rests the SSPX, who
naturally are faithful to Traditional Rome.
Nevertheless, I was unable to deceive my conscience. So I kept
wondering whether Catholic Tradition actually sustained the
argument that a Catholic could be faithful to Traditional Rome,
without remaining faithful to temporal Rome.
“Our hearts are restless, O Lord, until they rest in
You,” remarks St. Augustine at the opening of his
Confessions. My heart was spiritually restless because it
didn’t rest in full communion with Christ’s Mystical
Body, the Church. Yet Christ also promises us in the Gospels that
if we seek the truth, we will find it (see Matt. 7:7).
In my case, the truth lay in the back room of my parents’
basement. There I found an abandoned box full of old papal
encyclicals left over from my father’s college days. At the
bottom of this box was Pope Pius XII’s masterful papal
encyclical Mystici Corporis.
Curious as to the content, I immediately opened this work to the
following passage: “We think, how grievously they err who
arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and
invisible, as they also do who look upon her as a mere human
institution possessing a certain disciplinary code and external
ritual, but lacking power to communicate supernatural life”
(par. 64). This theological discovery from Catholic Tradition as
expressed by the pre-Vatican II popes astounded me even more than
my previous St. Anastasius discovery in Denzinger.
Here, from the Church’s Tradition, was the teaching that we
cannot separate the Church into a mere spiritual communion as
opposed to a mere human institution. In short, the Rome of
Tradition and the Rome of Today were the same Rome. Everything
suddenly made sense to me about Catholic ecclesiology. Just as at
the Incarnation Christ was fully human and fully divine, without
sacrificing either nature, so too must the Church, as
Christ’s Mystical Body, be a perfect union of the visible
and the invisible.
I remembered that St. Paul had
asked somewhere in his epistles the question “Is Christ
divided?” (see 1 Cor. 1:13). Of course, the answer was no.
Therefore, why in the name of Catholic Tradition was I dividing
Christ’s Mystical Body into a spiritual communion and a
human communion?
Furthermore, in frequenting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
outside the visible communion of the Church, why was I dividing
Christ’s Sacramental Body (Body, Soul and Divinity) in the
Eucharist from Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church? For
didn’t expressions such as “Body of Christ” and
“Communion” carry this double meaning: the first
sacramental, meaning the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and the
second ecclesiological, meaning the sacred unity of the Church?
Captivated by these questions forming in my conscience, I kept
reading Mystici Corporis and came across the following section:
But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. . . . Since He was all-wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. . . . That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same (par. 40).
Of course, I said to myself; the
Roman Pontiff and Jesus Christ form but one head of the Catholic
Church. The word “tradition,” which I recalled from so
many homilies in SSPX chapels, comes from the Latin verb tradere,
which means “to hand down.” Ultimately, I reasoned,
there must be a source from which Tradition was first passed
down, and that source is Jesus Christ. In the end I realized that
Tradition is a Person — the Second Person of the Holy
Trinity who incarnated Himself in the womb of an immaculately
conceived Virgin.
As Christ and His vicar constitute but one Head of the Church,
then the voice of Tradition must speak through St. Peter and his
lawful successors in the Roman Primacy. Therefore, I had to make
a choice to follow Catholic Tradition and embrace the Rock upon
whom Christ founded His Mystical Body here and now.
Like the prodigal son, I realized my error in following
Archbishop Lefebvre into schism, and I was now making my way home
to Holy Mother Church. Through his generous papal indult in
Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, John Paul II was exactly like the father
in Christ’s parable: He was living up to his title
“Pope,” which means “Father,” by welcoming
into the Church his Traditionalist sons and daughters who in 1988
had followed Archbishop Lefebvre out of the vineyard of authentic
Catholic Tradition.
Was Archbishop Lefebvre
Excommunicated?
The last argument I consistently came across within SSPX
circles is more of a technical one that never affected my
decision to reconcile with the Church. In fact, I myself never
thought about researching an answer to this question, but rather
stumbled across the answer accidentally while researching my
thesis. Even so, the argument is made often enough to deserve
mention. It’s the claim that the Church never actually
excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre, but rather informed him that
he was automatically excommunicated by virtue of canon law
itself.
The Church can excommunicate an individual in two ways. The first
is by means of latae sententiae excommunication. This means that
the offender is automatically excommunicated by virtue of the law
itself, and thus the sentence need not be imposed by a judge
within the Church. However, in order for such an excommunication
to be enforced by canon law, a legitimate Church authority must
still declare that the excommunication has taken place.
The second method of imposing an excommunication is by ferendae
sententiae. This refers to the decision of a judge in a Church
tribunal.
Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated by virtue of the law, and
not by any penalty imposed by a judge. However, Lefebvre’s
apologists fail to note in making this argument that his
excommunication was subsequently declared by the Church. Cardinal
Gantin, in a decree from the Congregation for Bishops dated July
1, 1988, declared on behalf of the Church the excommunication of
Archbishop Lefebvre as follows:
Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatic act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law. . . . Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.
Without getting into all the canonical particulars, we can nevertheless clearly establish in this statement that the Church has excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre. Rome has clearly spoken as the voice of Catholic Tradition, and thus the case is now closed.
The Substance of Catholic
Tradition
In my journey back to the Church, through the grace of God
I’ve been led from the mere “accidents” of
Catholic Tradition to the substance of Catholic Tradition.
Although I enjoy the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI, which I
now recognize as the normative liturgy of the Latin Church,
I’m as firmly committed to preservation of the 1962
liturgical missal today as I was during my time in the Lefebvre
movement. However, I realize that our liturgical tradition as
Catholics cannot be preserved apart from John Paul II and all the
other legitimate successors of St. Peter. For his voice is the
voice of Catholic Tradition in the Church today — a
Tradition that has been passed down to him by Christ and the
Apostles.
Pete Vere
The Catholic Legate
Date, 2004
_______________________
The article originally appeared in Envoy Magazine.