Neither Schismatic Nor Disobedient | FSSPX News
Faced with the profusion of statements, articles and interviews which present the Society of Saint Pius X as responsible for a fracture within the Church, for a very serious disobedience towards the Holy Father, or even for a real schism, it seems appropriate to write a few lines in order to provide some clarification.
Our method will always be the same, not impressions, nor "hearsay," nor the lucubrations of the occasional commentator, but Catholic theology, drawn from its sources: the constant Magisterium of the Church and the teaching of the great theologians and canonists.
1. The Society of Saint Pius X Is Not Schismatic
Cardinal Tommaso de Vio (known as Cajetan, 1469-1534), one of the greatest theologians of all time, explicitly stated: “Disobeying, even obstinately, the Sovereign Pontiff does not constitute a schism. What constitutes a schism is refusing to submit to him as head of the whole Church.” 1
What is the difference between simple disobedience, which does not lead to schism, and disobedience accompanied by rebellion, which implies a refusal to submit and constitutes a schism?
Cardinal Cajetan explains it clearly. I can disobey an order from the Pope for three reasons:
- because what he orders me to do not please me or seems unfair to me;
- because I believe he is acting unfairly towards me;
- because I do not recognize him as my superior.
In the first two cases, there is no schism; in the third, there is a schism. 2
The difference is clear. If I do not recognize the Pope as my superior, I will not be willing to obey him under any circumstances, whatever order he gives me. If, on the other hand, I recognize him as my superior, I may certainly disobey him on a particular point, but I remain ready to obey him; therefore, I am not a schismatic.
Otherwise, anyone who disobeyed a papal precept, for example by refusing to fast on the prescribed days or to attend Sunday mass, would be a schismatic. Which is absurd.
“It often happens, in fact, that a man refuses to carry out the orders of his superior while continuing to recognize him as his superior.” 3
This doctrine of Cardinal Cajetan was adopted by all subsequent canonists and theologians, without exception.
However, if we consider the Society's consistent stance and the statements of its superiors, it becomes clear that it disobeys the Pope not because it refuses to recognize him as its superior or to submit to him, but because it believes it cannot accept certain orders he gives. We therefore find ourselves in the first case described by Cardinal Cajetan.
Indeed, the Society names the Pope in the Canon of the Mass (thus demonstrating its recognition of him as its superior) and obeys the Holy See in all matters where there is neither certainty nor probability of modernism (for example, regarding laicization, requests for dispensations or graces reserved to the Holy Father, the proclamation of jubilees, etc.). It is also ready to obey the Pope in all things, provided that his orders do not imply adherence to the modernist doctrines of Vatican II and the post-conciliar period.
The Society is therefore in no way schismatic.
But is she at least disobedient? For one can be seriously disobedient without being schismatic. We will answer this question in the third point.
2. Episcopal Consecrations Conferred Without an Apostolic Mandate Do Not Constitute a Schismatic Act and Do Not Render the Society Schismatic
It is important to remember that, until the end of the Middle Ages, episcopal consecration was not reserved exclusively to the Pope. This means that, normally, the Pope did not appoint bishops and did not even confirm their appointment when it was made by others. The papal prerogative regarding the appointment or confirmation of bishops dates back only to the end of the 13th century and only truly became established in the following century.
One might object that, in antiquity, episcopal consecrations certainly took place without the Pope's intervention, but never against his will. This is not always true.
In the time of St. Augustine, bishops were sometimes consecrated as coadjutors in a diocese that already had its own titular bishop, and bishops were sometimes transferred from one see to another contrary to the prescriptions of the ecumenical councils and, consequently, against the will of the Pope who had approved those councils. Many pointed out the irregularity of these acts, but no one spoke of schism.
In more recent times, during the 12th and 13th centuries , there were also bishops, primarily from the mendicant orders, consecrated without following the regular canonical procedure, thus contravening the Pope's will. Again, the Holy See intervened to restore order, but no one was considered a schismatic. I will return to this issue in more detail in a separate article.
It follows from all this that the reservation of episcopal consecration to the Pope is not of divine right, but of ecclesiastical right.
It is by divine right that the bishop remain in communion with the Pope. Now, we saw in the first point that the bishops of the Fraternity, not being schismatic, are fully in communion with the Pope.
No theologian or canonist, at least until the Second Vatican Council, cites episcopal consecration without an apostolic mandate among the examples of schismatic acts.
In traditional canon law, until 1951, an episcopal consecration without a mandate was simply punished by a suspension; it was therefore not considered a schism, which was sanctioned by excommunication.
Even after 1951, when the penalty was increased from suspension to excommunication, no theologian or canonist argued that any episcopal consecration without a mandate constituted a schism in itself.
The idea that an episcopal consecration without an apostolic mandate would, by its very nature, be a schismatic act only appeared on the occasion of the consecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. It has no precedent in theological or canonical tradition.
Finally, one might perhaps consider as schismatic, or at least as tending towards schism, a consecration without a mandate which would claim to confer upon the new bishop a power of episcopal jurisdiction, that is to say the right to govern a diocese and to exercise authority over priests and the faithful.
However, according to the doctrine clearly taught by Pius VI and Pius XII, the bishop receives his power of jurisdiction not through consecration, but through the canonical mission received from the Pope (Vatican II teaches the contrary...). Claiming to confer jurisdictional power against the will of the Pontiff would therefore constitute an usurpation of his authority and a tendency towards schism.
But the Society of Saint Pius X has never claimed to confer jurisdictional power on its bishops.
The bishops of the Society, as bishops, possess no governmental power over the faithful or over priests. They possess only the power of Holy Orders, that is to say, the power to confer the sacraments (confirmation, holy orders) as well as the sacramentals reserved to bishops.
However, this power does not come to them from the Pope, but directly from God through episcopal consecration.
Therefore, there is neither usurpation of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff, nor a tendency towards schism.
3. The Society of Saint Pius X Is Not Disobedient Either
In Catholic doctrine, obedience is not an absolute, not even obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff.
As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches: “The abuse of authority can occur […] when what is commanded by the superior is contrary to the end for which the authority was instituted, for example, when he orders an evil act, contrary to the virtue that this authority is intended to promote and protect. In this case, not only is one not obliged to obey the superior, but one is even obliged not to obey him, as the holy martyrs faced death rather than obey the impious orders of tyrants.” 4
The same teaching can be found in Leo XIII's encyclical Diuturnum illud (June 29, 1881).
Moreover, if the unjust order of the superior constitutes a danger to the faith, the disobedience itself must be public.
It is again Saint Thomas who affirms this: “When there is an imminent danger to the faith, the prelates themselves must be publicly rebuked by their subjects. This is why Saint Paul, who was subject to Saint Peter, publicly rebuked him because of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith. And, as the Gloss says, quoting Saint Augustine, regarding Chapter II of the Epistle to the Galatians, ‘Peter himself thus gave superiors an example: if ever they should stray from the right path, they should not refuse to be corrected even by their inferiors.’” 5
The great Dominican theologian Juan de Torquemada (1388-1468) summarizes all the above in these terms: “If the Roman Pontiff commands something that is evil in itself, that is, contrary to divine law, to the faith, or to the salvation of souls, in such a case, separating oneself from the Roman Pontiff by disobedience is not illicit and, consequently, should not be called schism.” 6
One could not be clearer. And, let us repeat, this is not the isolated opinion of a theologian, but the unanimous teaching of the entire theological tradition.
4. The Society Acted Precisely Because of the State of Necessity in Which the Faith Finds Itself
Can we, however, say that the order the Society refused to obey was "evil in itself" or even "sinful"? After all, renouncing episcopal consecrations is not, in itself, a bad act. One could therefore conclude that, while the Society did not fall into schism, it nevertheless committed a very serious act of disobedience.
We respond that the act of renouncing episcopal consecrations, considered abstractly, is indeed not wrong. But if it is considered in the current and concrete circumstances of the Church, then it becomes wrong and even culpable.
In the present situation of the Church, if the Society of Saint Pius X had not carried out the consecrations of July 1st, it would have found itself facing an inevitable alternative: either to disappear gradually, or to accept, at least in fact, the new liturgy as well as the false doctrines of Vatican II and the post-council.
Without the consecrations of July 1st, the Fraternity would have found itself, in a few years, without bishops, due to the natural death of those who currently hold this office.
Without bishops, there would be no more priestly ordinations; without ordinations, no more priests; and, in the long run, no more traditional Mass, no more traditional sacraments, no more comprehensive teaching of Catholic doctrine.
The only alternative would have been to request bishops from Rome, to have priests ordained by diocesan bishops, or to send the faithful to parish priests. However, each of these solutions would have implied accepting, at least practically, the false doctrines of the Council and the post-conciliar period.
We are already seeing this today, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the annex attached to the decree of excommunication published on July 2, requires all those who wish to return "in communion with Rome" to sign a declaration affirming that they accept Vatican II according to the interpretation given by the current Magisterium and that they undertake never to criticize the teachings of the Pope.
Consequently, without episcopal consecrations, the Fraternity would have been forced to accept doctrines such as religious freedom, ecumenism, collegiality, the illicitness of the death penalty, the possibility for divorced and remarried people to receive communion, or the blessing of homosexual couples; or, at the very least, to agree not to criticize them publicly.
It is thus understood that the Pope's order, considered in the concrete circumstances in which it was given, commands an act which becomes objectively evil and culpable, since it is never permitted to accept or to renounce denouncing what is contrary to the Faith.
In this regard, it is important to remember that the doctrinal positions of the Society are not mere opinions, nor are they personal preferences, particular sensitivities, or tastes; they constitute Catholic doctrine, definitively taught by the constant Magisterium of the Church. One need only read the acts of all the popes and the writings of all theologians prior to the Council to be convinced of this.
It is therefore impossible to renounce them, since they belong to the very deposit of faith. When the Pope demands the contrary, it is clear that his order is, in Torquemada's words, contrary "to divine law, to the faith, or to the salvation of souls." Consequently, not only can we disobey him, but we must.
Finally, let us address one last objection: "You are no one to assert that certain teachings of the Council and post-Council are contrary to traditional doctrine. This judgment belongs solely to the supreme authority, that is, to the Pope."
But if that were the case, what would be the meaning of the words of Torquemada and all the other theologians claiming that every Christian has the right to disobey the Pope when he objectively commands something wrong?
When Alexander VI forbade, under pain of excommunication, his mistress Giulia Farnese from leaving their life together to return to her legitimate husband, should she have obeyed him on the pretext that it was not for her to judge the conformity of papal acts with divine law?
Similarly, when Catholics today oppose communion for divorced and remarried people or the approval of homosexual acts, are they usurping a power that belongs exclusively to the Pope?
Conclusion
The Fraternity is neither schismatic nor disobedient. The excommunications pronounced against it are without effect, because where there is no crime, there can be no punishment. The wound certainly exists, but we did not inflict it.
We are confident, indeed certain, by virtue of the promises made by Our Lord Jesus Christ to his Church, that one day the Church authorities will return to authentic Catholic doctrine and recognize our complete innocence.
Don Daniele Di Sorco
End of article...
Pray for strength and honor! And for discernment according to a rightly formed Catholic conscience!
Viva Cristo Rey! Bl. Fr. Miguel Pro, Fr. Emil Kapaun, and Fr. Vincent Capodanno, pray for us...
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...
St. Joseph, pray for us!!
Gene DeLalla
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment.