A Response to Christopher Ferrara
by Father Arnaud Devillers,
Superior General, Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
Summer 2002
I wish to thank Father McLucas for giving me
an opportunity to respond to Mr. Ferrara’s article. I do
find some serious confusion in the way Mr. Ferrara presents
the question of the canonical status of the Society of St.
Pius X (SSPX). Obviously the subject treated of in the
Tu es Petrus article – attendance at Mass and reception
of the sacraments from a SSPX priest – shall find a very
different response whether or not one considers the Society
of St. Pius X as schismatic. I intend here to deal only with
this key question.
The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was
founded in July 1988 by 12 clerics who had been members or
associates of the Society of St. Pius X. Why did they leave?
They left when Archbishop Lefebvre decided to consecrate
four bishops against the express will of the Holy Father.
Shortly after its foundation, the Fraternity published a
theological essay written by some of its members under the
direction of Father Josef Bisig, founding Superior General,
called “A Study of Episcopal Consecrations against the
will of the Pope applied to the consecration of 30th June
1988 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.” The conclusion of
this study is that “the episcopate issuing from the
Ecône Consecrations is contrary to the very nature of
the episcopate, thus non-Catholic and schismatic.”1 To be in
full communion with the successor of Peter, one must be
received into communion by him: a refusal entails the
absence of communion. Pope Pius IX drew the logical
conclusion of this principle: “All these declarations (from
Tradition) are so emphatic that we must conclude from them
that a man who has been declared schismatic by the Roman
Pontiff must cease absolutely to claim the name of
Catholic….”2
After Archbishop Lefebvre wrote to the Pope
on June 2 that “the time for a frank and efficacious
collaboration has not arrived yet” and that he would proceed
nonetheless in ordaining several bishops, he received a
double admonition clearly warning him of the schismatic
character of the consecrations he intended to perform
against the will of the Vicar of Christ. First from the Pope
himself in his letter of June 9: “With a paternal heart, but
with all the gravity required by the current circumstances,
I urge you, Revered Brother, not to embark upon a course
which, if persisted in, cannot but appear as a schismatic
act whose inevitable theological and canonical consequences
are well known to you. I earnestly invite you to return, in
humility, to full obedience to the Vicar of Christ.” The
second admonition is from Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the
Congregation of Bishops, on June 17, 1988,3 which begins to
warn him of the excommunication incurred automatically by
the ordaining and ordained Bishops when done without papal
mandate (canon 1382) and proceeds to say: “Thus, I beg and
urge you in the name of Jesus Christ to consider with great
attention to what you are about to accomplish against the
laws of the holy discipline as well as to the most serious
consequences concerning communion with the Catholic church,
of which you are bishop.”4
After the Consecrations, those concerned
were declared excommunicated on two grounds: first for
schism (canon 1364, 1), and secondly for episcopal
consecrations made without papal mandate (canon 1382):
“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 schismatical 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
Marcel 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.
Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio
de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took
part directly in the liturgical celebration as
co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act,
has incurred excommunication latae sententiae as
envisaged by canon 1364, 1.
The priests and faithful are warned not to
support the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, otherwise they
shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of
excommunication.”
The next day the Pope promulgated the
Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei adflicta given
motu proprio (i.e., coming directly from him) where he
confirms the excommunication for cause of schism:
1. With great affliction the Church has
learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30
June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has
frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to
ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly
Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre.
These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in
which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the
limits of the possible, were all to no avail.”
3. In itself, this act was one of
disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and
of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as
is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic
succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such
disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of
the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act. In
performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical
warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the
Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and
the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais,
Richard Williamson and Alphonso de Galarreta, have incurred
the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by
ecclesiastical law.5
In his article, Mr. Ferrara seems to find
significant that Bishop Castro Mayer’s excommunication is
not mentioned in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei
and seems to conclude that he is thus not excommunicated. We
have seen above that he is clearly mentioned in the decree
declaring the excommunications for cause of schism (canon
1364) and episcopal consecration without papal mandate
(canon 1382). The motu proprio is not a
“declaration” of excommunication. Its main objective is to
urge the priests and faithful connected with the Society of
St. Pius X to remain in communion with the Church and to
announce what will be done to facilitate their full
communion.6
Father Gerald Murray, in a letter to The
Latin Mass magazine,7 made the following comment:
Another important criticism I received
concerns the question of the possible invalidity of the
declaration of excommunication issued by the Congregation
for Bishops. A couple of well-versed canonists pointed out
something crucial which I neglected to include in my thesis,
and which probably led to an incorrect inference on the part
of many readers: once the competent authority in the Church,
in this case the Congregation for Bishops, has publicly
declared a latae sententiae (automatic) penalty to
have been incurred, the persons named in that declaration
are bound to submit to the public effects of the penalty.
They are not free to simply ignore the
penalty, alleging reasons why it does not apply to them.
They may be sincerely convinced that the penalty was not
incurred automatically. They may be convinced that the
declaration was invalid. They may even be able to prove
their case. But they cannot simply assert this, and then act
as though there had been no declaration of excommunication.
They must prove their case in an administrative recourse. If
they choose not to lodge a recourse, then the matter rests
as established by the competent Church authority. They are
excommunicated.
This presumption in favor of the validity of
administrative and judicial acts of Church authority exists
in order to guarantee the good order of the society which is
the Church. The four bishops consecrated by Archbishop
Lefebvre are and must be considered as excommunicated until
such time as Church authority withdraws the declaration of
excommunication.
Mr. Ferrara states that there has been no
clear determination of the meaning of the term “formal
adherence” in the motu proprio which would make
priests and lay adherents schismatic and thus
excommunicated. He seems to ignore that the Pontifical
Council for Legislative Texts has set up guidelines in 1996
at the request of the Congregation for Bishops after a
bishop inquired about the status of SSPX bishops, priests
and lay adherents.8 The document was published in Italian in
Communicationes, the official review of that Council, but
can also be found on the Vatican website. The entire
document should be read carefully. Let us quote a few
passages.
As the motu proprio declares in no.
5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for
schism regards those who “adhere formally” to the said
schismatic movement…. [I]t seems to this pontifical Council
that such formal adherence would have to imply two
complementary elements:
a) one of internal nature, consisting in a
free and informed agreement with the substance of the
schism, in other words, in the choice made in such a way of
the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre which puts such an
option above obedience to the Pope….
b) the other of an external character,
consisting in the externalizing of this option, the most
manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation
in Lefebvrian “ecclesial” acts, without taking part in the
acts of the Catholic Church….9
6. In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and
priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity
in the ambit of the schismatic movement is more than evident
sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above
(no. 5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence.”
7. On the other hand, in the case of the
rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional
participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the
Lefebvrian movement, done without making one’s own the
attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a
movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of
formal adherence to the movement.”10
To use Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Castillo
Lara, Cardinal Cassidy, and Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos to
prove that there is a gray area about the question of
whether the Society is schismatic is disingenuous. The
decree of excommunication for cause of schism of the
Hawaiian six by the Bishop of Honolulu was indeed overturned
by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In his
decree, the Congregation says it does not find evidence of a
crime of schism on their part, although it does find some of
their activities “blameworthy.” The decree did not overturn
the excommunication of the SSPX bishops! (See text in note
10.)
Cardinal Castillo Lara has himself clarified
his position:
In the case of Lefebvre and the four priests
consecrated bishops by him, there are two offenses,
canonically speaking, that they have committed. The
fundamental offense is that of schism, that is, refusing
submission to the Roman Pontiff and breaking communion with
the Church (canon 751). This offense they had already
previously committed. Only that, now, the second offense,
that of consecrating bishops, formalizes, in a certain sense
and concretizes the first, and makes it explicit.”11
Cardinal Cassidy does not affirm that there
is no schism but only that the SSPX is not under his
competence, since the Society of St. Pius X does not
constitute “another Church or Ecclesial Community in the
meaning used in the Ecumenical Directory.”12 The Commission
Ecclesia Dei is the one competent here.
The fraternal tone of Cardinal Castrillon
Hoyos in his last letter to Bishop Fellay is a polite way to
speak to other prelates even if they are not Catholic or in
full communion with the church. The first part of the letter
gives a summary of the first steps in the negotiation
process during which the Cardinal had a positive view of the
Society: “noting your good will.” The two sentences used by
Mr. Ferrara to build his case that the Cardinal does not
consider them schismatic are both in the past tense, as
though he did not have this impression any longer. They were
not intended to deny what all the Church documents already
quoted have said but to describe the Cardinal’s impression
about the good will of Bishop Fellay at the beginning of the
negotiations. Indeed, most of the letter concerns itself
with different declarations by various authorities within
the Society of St. Pius X having a schismatic and even
heretical savor. In reaction to some quotations which
indicate that the SSPX is separated from Rome through the
fault of Roman authorities and not their own, the Cardinal
makes this remark, learned from the study of Church history:
“No heretic or schismatic, in the course of history, has
declared himself to be wrong. They have always thought that
the Church was wrong.” The Cardinal notes also that some of
the SSPX clerics do not have “the true faith in the
authentic Tradition of the Church.”
Bishop Fellay understands correctly the
letter of the Cardinal, since he writes: “Now comes the
Cardinal in his letter of April 5, one month ago, with a
fivefold rebuke.” He terminates the dialogue accusing the
Cardinal of duplicity and quoting Archbishop Lefebvre in his
letter to the Pope announcing the episcopal consecrations:
“The time of a frank collaboration has not yet come.”13 In
sum, the Cardinal has gone as far as possible in his
dialogue with the SSPX, he has given them the benefit of the
doubt, and at first he thought that they sincerely desired
to return to full communion. A year later, he has some
serious reservations.
In conclusion, I shall quote Father Murray :
“The Society of St. Pius X and those who frequent their
chapels must realize that continuing on a path of defiance
and separation from the Holy See, and from the Church in
general, will inevitably lead them further and further away
from Catholic unity and into undeniable schism. Furthermore,
history ominously teaches us how easily schism leads into
heresy. We must all pray for the grace of a humble and
sincere act of repentance and submission to the Holy See on
the part of these brothers and sisters of ours. For the love
of God and His Church I urge them to cast aside a separatist
spirit, return to full visible unity, and join in the
ever-growing movement to renew the Catholic Church by
promoting Her sacred heritage and patrimony.”14
Notes
1. This study was essential to
convincing this writer that the Consecrations of June 30
were truly schismatic and thus to his deciding to leave the
Society of St. Pius X. He joined the Fraternity of St. Peter
in June 1989. It is still available in French and German and
can be ordered from Fraternity Publications in America.
Unfortunately, the study was never published in English
although a translation had been made (40 pages, Letter
format). This English translation can be obtained free of
charge in Adobe pdf format by e-mail publications@fssp.com
or by regular mail (donation appreciated!) from Fraternity
Publications, P.O. Box 196, Elmhurst, PA 18416.
2. Pius IX, Encyclical
Quantus Supra of June 1, 1873, in The Church, #393, St.
Paul edition, 1980. We recommend the reading of this whole
encyclical, which dispels some of the arguments of the
schismatic Armenians. E.g.: they claimed the excommunication
“was unjust and therefore null and void” and that there was
a state of necessity since “the faithful once deprived of
their ministry, would espouse the cause of the heretics.”
3. Congregation for
Bishops, Prot. N. 514/74.
4. To be “schismatic” and “not
to be in full communion with the Catholic Church” are one
and the same thing.
5. Translation from the
Osservatore Romano, English edition N. 28 (1047) of 11
July 1988
6. Why is Bishop Castro Mayer
not mentioned in the motu proprio? One can only
guess! It is perhaps because the motu proprio
concerns itself only with the followers of the Society of
St. Pius X.
7. Father Gerald E. Murray,
Letter to the Publisher, in The Latin Mass Magazine
, Summer 1996 pp 54-55.
8. Pontificium consilium de
legum textibus interpretandis, August 24, 1996, Prot. N.
5233/96 in Communicationes Vol. XXIX N.2, 1997 “On the
excommunication for schism incurred by the adherents of the
movement of Archbishop Lefebvre.” An English translation has
been published in The Canon Law Society of America
Newsletter, N. 115, September 1998 pp 7-9 followed by a
commentary of Rev. Gordon F. Read written on July 15, 1998
(pp 9-13).
9. Compare to what Father
Peter Scott, U.S. District Superior, is saying to his
priests in the Priest Bulletin pp 7-8, March 1, 1999 : “Our
faithful, that is Catholics who regularly attend our Masses,
should firmly and positively be told that they do not have
the right to attend Indult Masses, even if they have no
other way of satisfying their Sunday obligation….”
10. That is why Cardinal
Ratzinger overturned the decree of excommunication of six
people made by the Bishop of Hawaii. “On July 3, 1991, Mrs.
Patricia Morley had recourse to this Congregation against
the Decree of the Bishop of Honolulu issued on May 1, 1991.
His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Anthony Ferrario,
with aforesaid Decree declared Mrs. Morley excommunicated on
the grounds that she had committed the crime of schism and
thus had incurred the latae sententiae penalty as
provided for in canon 1364, #1 of the Code of Canon Law.
This Congregation has examined carefully all the available
documentation and has ascertained that the activities
engaged in by the petitioner, though blameworthy on various
accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of
schism. Since Mrs. Morley 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.”
11. The entire clarification
of Cardinal Castillo Lara would need to be read. It has been
published in an article written by John Beaumont and John
Walsh called “The Story of the Vanishing Schism: The
Strange Case of Cardinal Lara” in the March 1994 issue
of Fidelity magazine.
12. See The Directory for
the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism
#4-5, 35-36.
13. Bishop Bernard Fellay,
Letter to Friends and Benefactors n. 62, June 7, 2002.
14. Rev. Gerald E. Murray, op.
cit.
Read Christopher Ferrara's
Final Commentary