FAQ 4 WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X (SSPX)? TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Internet Site E-mail: traditio@traditio.com, Web: www.traditio.com Copyright 1994-2005 CSM. Reproduction prohibited without authorization. Last Updated: 12/20/09 THE SSPX -- AN UPDATE (2009) Marcel Lefebvre, the courageous traditional archbishop who stood up to the Newchurch of the New Order and called it "not Catholic," died in 1991. In 1994 one of the bishops consecrated by the Archbishop, Bernie Fellay, was elected Superior General of the SSPX. Over the intervening years, particularly after 2000, Fellay hatched a plan, known as the "Hindenburg Plan," to make the Archbishop's SSPX into a Neo-SSPX, which would sell out to the Novus Ordo condemned by the Archbishop, in order to gain a seat at the Novus Ordo table in Newchurch. Although the Archbishop had grave reservations about the "Mass of 1962," engineered by the same Freemason presbyter, Hannibal Bugnini, who fabricated the invalid Novus Ordo service of 1969 with his Committee of Six Protestant Ministers, Fellay embraced this corrupted version of the Mass, particularly after Benedict-Ratzinger's Great "Motu" Mess Hoax of 2007, which attempted to replace the Traditional Latin Mass with this corrupted Mass in the minds of traditional Catholics. Fellay also took other steps to sell out to the Novus Ordo. Around the world he replaced at various SSPX sites traditional Catholic priests with Novus Ordo presbyters merely installed under Bugnini's invalid New Ordinal of 1968, not ordained in the traditional rite. Fellay has also announced that he is essentially willing to accept all the unCatholic teachings of Vatican II (1962-1965), which were specifically condemned as being unCatholic by Archbishop Lefebvre. The Neo- SSPX under Fellay is clearly moving toward joining the Novus Ordo and can no longer be recommended as a traditional organization. THE SSPX -- PROS AND CONS TRADITIO is frequently asked whether the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) is "schismatic" or "excommunicated"; therefore, the following information is provided. This material is presented only as a matter of information, not advocacy. TRADITIO has never had any connection with the SSPX. In fact, our correspondents indicate that some (but not all) elements of the SSPX are inimical toward traditional Catholics outside its own organization and outside of its control. These elements of the SSPX leadership do not display the same good Catholic sense that the SSPX's founder, Abp. Lefebvre, demonstrated. The SSPX is very much a two-edged sword. The following summary of the situation with respect to the SSPX was written by a member of an independent chapel that was taken over by the SSPX and essentially destroyed through calumny against the priest who founded it: "I think that the basic problems with the SSPX are that they implicitly view themselves as the Church and the sole possessors of Tradition, and are very Jansenistic [militaristic, Calvinistic] in their attitudes and outlook. They are very negative and combative, always preaching and focusing on the negative aspects of our Faith and attacking those who do not wholeheartedly kowtow to and agree with them.... "The real problem is with their leadership. It is weak and political from the top down. There are many excellent priests within the SSPX, and I am friends with many of them, and they are fed up with the goings-on. They are not at fault, but their superiors are. Many of them will leave the SSPX if things continue as they are...." Thus, at some SSPX chapels, you may encounter a hostile or negative attitude and defamatory remarks about non-SSPX traditional Catholics, particularly those who are new to the traditional movement from the Novus Ordo. That having been said, many of the local SSPX people and priests do not share that viewpoint and, in some cases, have been courageous enough to speak out against them at their own peril. If an SSPX Mass is the only convenient one to attend in a given area, surely the Traditional Latin Mass there is better than a Novus Ordo service or no Mass at all. One must be careful, however, to remain attached to the Traditional Latin Mass, Sacraments, and Faith and not to the SSPX (or any other organization, for that matter). The best situation would be to find a Mass site that is independent of these organizational entanglements. Find a priest who is satisfied to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass, administer the Traditional Latin Sacraments, and preach the traditional Roman Catholic Faith, without all the organizational politics. In any case, the Novus Ordo service is never an option. It is sacrilegious, unCatholic, and not even a Mass, let alone a valid one. AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, VISITORS ARE ADVISED TO EVALUATE LOCAL SSPX MASS SITES CAREFULLY ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. THE CANONIC BACKGROUND It should be noted that the following information is based on the Novus Ordo Code of Canon Law (1983), which many traditional Catholics do not accept on the grounds that it is tainted with the errors of: * Modernism, particularly in regard to its treatment of the Sacred Liturgy * Indifferentism (the proposition that "all religions are equally good") * False Ecumenism (changing of the Catholic faith and worship to make it acceptable to non-Catholic religions) * Communicatio in sacris (sacrilegious participation by Catholics in non-Catholic rites) * Inculturation (the incorporation of elements from non-Roman cultures, including such pagan elements as hula dancing and animal sacrifice, into the Church's Sacred Liturgy). However, the 1983 is the Code that the Novus Ordinarians quote from, so it is used below. Is the Society of St. Pius X schismatic or excommunicated? Can the faithful fulfil their Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass? Are SSPX Masses, Sacraments, and Orders valid? Much incorrect information has been circulated by individual laymen, priests, and bishops to dissuade traditional Catholics from attending the Traditional Latin Mass at SSPX chapels and even other sites not affiliated with the SSPX. Frequently, these individuals throw around technical terms like "schismatic" and "excommunicated," without even knowing the canons or the New Vatican decrees applicable. There is a growing concurrence of the most prominent Roman canonists that: 1) Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, by the terms of the canon law, did not commit a schismatic act under canon law by consecrating four bishops without explicit papal permission 2) the declaration of excommunication by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops is null and void (Abp. Lefebvre was technically not "excommunicated"; rather, the Congregation simply declared that he had "excommunicated" himself, as no ecclesiastical trial was ever held; Abp. Lefebvre disputed this contention of the Congregation, citing the provisions of the 1983 Code of Canon Law) 3) priests and faithful associated with the SSPX, let alone any other traditional Catholic priests or laymen, are under no censure at all 4) the Vatican itself admits (as it must) that traditional Catholics and traditional Catholic priests are not "schismatic," as when the traditional priests and faithful of Campos, Brazil, were received into "full communion" with the Novus Ordo on January 18, 2002, the Vatican did not pretend to absolve them from any censure for "schism," which would have been necessary, had the Vatican legally been able to hold them "schismatic" The following Roman canonists have publicly declared their finding that any purported "excommunications" in this case are null and void under canon law: * Castillo Cardinal Lara, J.C.D., President of the Pontifical Commission for Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law * Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity * Alfons Cardinal Stickler, former Prefect of the Vatican Archives and Library * Fr. Gerard E. Murray, J.C.D., of the United States * Fr. Patrick Valdini, J.C.D., Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law * Fr. Rudolf Kaschewski of Germany * Count Neri Capponi, D.Cn.L., Ll.D, Professor of Canon Law * Professor Geringer, J.C.D. It should be noted that the question of excommunication does not come up under the traditional Code of Canon Law (1917), which does not provide for the penalty of excommunication for the consecration of a bishop without papal approval. THE NEW VATICAN SPEAKS The following briefly summarizes the positions of the New Vatican's chief canonists on the matter of the SSPX. By providing these Vatican statements, we do not thereby accept that Novus Ordo officials at the Vatican are speaking for true Catholicism. The statements are provided to indicate, to those who pay the discredited Novus Ordo apparatus any heed at all, that even it is forced to admit the validity of SSPX and other traditional Catholic organizations. LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE CLERGY Under signature of Silvio Cardinal Oddi, President (March 17, 1984) [In answer to a family attending Mass at an SSPX chapel as to whether such attendance fulfilled her obligation for Sunday Mass,] "According to the New Code of Canon Law, 'The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite....' I hope that settles your doubts." DECREE OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH (HOLY OFFICE) Under signature of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect Known as the "Honolulu Decision" (Protocol No. 14428, June 4, 1993) Background: The Bishop of Honolulu on May 1, 1991, declared six laymen "excommunicated on the grounds that [they] had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the 'latae sententiae' penalty [of automatic excommunication] as provided for in ... the Code of Canon Law. The "Honolulu Six" had (1) established a traditional chapel independent of diocesan jurisdiction, (2) invited independent priests, predominantly SSPX priests, to celebrate Mass at the chapel, and (3) invited one of the bishops named in the Vatican's excommunication decree to confer the traditional Sacrament of Confirmation at the chapel. In response to an appeal by one of the Honolulu Six against the decree of the Bishop of Honolulu, the Congregation decreed: "This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner ... are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism. Since [the Petitioner] did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the 'latae sententiae' penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which it is founded. This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu." ALFONS CARDINAL STICKLER Prefect of the Vatican Archives and Library Peritus (Expert) to Four Vatican II Commissions "Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority, legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine [Traditional Latin] Mass in the present day? The answer given by eight of the cardinals in 1986 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this; I was one of the cardinals. "There was another question, very interesting. Can any bishop forbid a priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again? The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have no official publication, and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition ... because of the words of [Pope St.] Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever." LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994) "The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course, the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. The bishops are validly ... consecrated." LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION "ECCLESIA DEI" Under Signature of Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary May 28, 1996; repeated in Protocol N. 236/98 of March 6, 1998 "It is true that participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute 'formal adherence to the schism.'" September 27, 2002 1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. 2. ...If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin. 3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified. INTERVIEW OF DARIO CARDINAL CASTRILLON HOYOS PRESIDENT OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION "ECCLESIA DEI" Interview with Gianni Cardinale, of 30 Giorni November 2005 "Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, EVEN IF IT WAS NOT A FORMAL SCHISM. ON THE PURPORTED "EXCOMMUNICATION" OF ABP. MARCEL LEFEBVRE ROSALIO JOSE CARDINAL CASTILLO LARA, J.C.D. (DOCTOR OF CANON LAW) President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law President of the Disciplinary Commission of the Roman Curia "The act of consecrating a bishop [without explicit papal permission] is not in itself a schismatic act." COUNT NERI CAPPONI, D.CN.L. - LATERAN (DOCTOR OF CANON LAW) LL.D. - FLORENCE (DOCTOR OF LAWS) Professor Emeritus of Canon Law at the University of Florence Accredited as an Advocate of the Holy Roman Rota (the Holy See's highest marriage tribunal) Accredited as an Advocate of the Apostolic Signatura (the Holy See's highest appeals tribunal) "The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said: 'I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.' Therefore, this act was not, per se, schismatic." PROFESSOR GERINGER, J.C.D. Canon Lawyer at the University of Munich "With the episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre was by no means creating a schism." REV. FR. PATRICK VALDINI, J.C.D. Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris "It is not the consecration of a bishop that creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission [which Abp. Lefebvre never did]." REV. FR. GERALD E. MURRAY, J.C.D. (PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY) Title of Doctoral Thesis Accepted: "The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X: Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics?" "They're not excommunicated as schismatics, because the Vatican has never said they are.... You can ... show that Lefebvre himself was not excommunicated and therefore no one else was.... I come to the conclusion that, canonically speaking, he's not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. In the case of the Society of Saint Pius X, the Vatican never declared any priest or lay person to have become a schismatic."