Professor Fedeli is a professor of history at the University of São Paolo in Brazil, and is President of the Montfort Cultural Association.
The following critique of the marriage tribunals of the SSPX was hand delivered to the Bishops of the SSPX in 1999, and was subsequently ignored.
This document proves that:
The website of the Montfort Cultural Association is http://www.montfort.org.br/. Professor Fedeli was among those who first alerted Bishop de Castro-Mayer to errors within the group Tradition Family Property (TFP).
NOTE:
The magazine Iesus Christus – official bulletin of the Society of St. Pius X of Argentina (year VIII, n. 43, of January-February 1996), published a note, on page 17, entitled Nullity of Marriages, in which we are informed of the great number of annulments granted by the ecclesiastical courts, especially in the United States, and that they are indicative of the present moral situation in the Church. And this note concludes by saying:
"We have here the confirmation of the legitimacy of the marriages blessed by our priests, as well as our tribunals for marriage cases" (emphasis is ours).
This was the first public announcement, that we know of, regarding the existence of tribunals for marriage cases, belonging to the Society of St. Pius X.
Certainly this caused us enormous perplexity since the existence of those tribunals –bodies typically requiring jurisdiction – indicated that the Society of St. Pius X had changed regarding the question of jurisdiction.
Even before the consecration of the Bishops at Ecône, Archbishop Lefebvre had made it clear that, if by providence he one day did consecrate Bishops, they would have only a sacramental function and never one of jurisdiction:
"If one day it should be necessary to consecrate Bishops, they will have only the episcopal function of exercising their power of order and they will not have any power of jurisdiction, not having a canonical mission". (Archbishop Lefebvre, in Si, Si, No, No, article by Hirpinus, "Neither schismatic, nor excommunicated," July of 1988, year XIV, n. 13)
When he carried out the consecration of the Bishops in Ecône, Archbishop Lefebvre declared:
"I see myself obliged by divine Providence to transmit the grace of the Catholic Episcopate that I received. The main objective of this transmission is of conferring the grace of the sacerdotal order for the continuation of the true Sacrifice of the Mass and to confer the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation to the children and faithful that ask" (Hirpinus, art. cit.)
Commenting on this statement Hirpinus wrote:
"Therefore, Archbishop Lefebvre did not arrogate to himself the right of conferring to the new Bishops the power of jurisdiction that originates mediately or immediately from the Roman Pontiff, and so he did not organize nor does he intend to organize a parallel hierarchy (besides which the Bishops ordained by him remain in the Fraternity submitted to the Superior General), and still less a parallel church. He limited himself to transmitting that "power of order" that the Bishop receives directly from God in the act of the consecration, in order to that the new Bishops can supply the state of need of souls and of the candidates to the Priesthood." (Hirpinus, art. cit.)
The note in the magazine Iesus Christus saying that the Society of St. Pius X had tribunals, therefore, contradicted that statement of Archbishop Lefebvre, which was the same as the repeated affirmations of the priests of Ecône and of Campos: that there was no fall into schism, because no territorial jurisdiction that only the Pope can give was assumed.
A second point to observe in the note cited is that in it is affirmed that the scandalous number of marriage annulments granted by the tribunals canonically instituted "legitimizes... our tribunals."(Iesus Christus, note cited).
Now, this affirmation is absurd and unacceptable: the laxity or the
severity of the decisions of a court never make it illegitimate – this
we propose to show – and a great deal less can it confer legitimacy on
the institution of another court, parallel to the existing official one.
At this point we tried to inform ourselves, with the traditional priests of Campos, regarding the existence or non-existence of these courts and how their existence could be justified.
The answers that we received were evasive or contradictory.
Either we were told that the courts did not exist, or that they were merely an "Office" for marriage cases (as if the situation was changed simply by giving the name of Office to a body that pronounces judicial sentences). Then they [the traditional priests of Campos] told us and guaranteed to us that there not were courts. Later they confessed that the courts existed, but that only the priests who had faithful with some legal matrimonial problem knew about them. Bishop Rangel wrote that the "Office" of Campos only gave the opinions of experts – that is to say – concepts and not judgements. Meanwhile His Excellency wrote:
"What in truth happens is that I consult, if it is necessary, with the priests of the Council of the Sacerdotal Union for diverse cases. However it is I who make the decisions, having in view the principle of supplied jurisdiction of Canon Law and that of the jurisprudence of the learned authors in the matter, by the case of necessity that justified the measures of extreme gravity of the episcopal consecrations against the rights of the Pope". Bishop Licinio Rangel, letter to Mrs. Marcia Dosi).
The same Bishop Licinio Rangel wrote to Sister Leticia of Bom Jesús do Itabapoana:
"And if the "Canonical Commission of St. Charles Borromeo," instituted by Archbishop Lefebvre, did it [annulled marriages] it would not be usurping any power of the Pope, neither of the Bishops. Their members, will be, in such a case, giving a private judgment as experts in Law". (emphasis is ours).
Therefore, Bishop Rangel affirmed that the Canonical Commission of Saint Charles Borromeo gave private judgments (that is to say, mere opinions) and not exactly sentences.
At this point, we wrote to Bishop Fellay, current Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, investigating about the existence of the tribunals.
Then we received from Bishop Tissier de Mallerais – President of the Canonical Commission of Saint Charles Borromeo – an answer that, instead of appeasing our doubts, aggravated them. In that letter, dated October 9, 1996, His Excellency informed us that, besides ecclesiastical courts of first and second instance, the Society of St. Pius X instituted a tribunal with the powers of the Sacred Roman Rota:
"Pour les sentences que nous prononçons en troisième instance, nous appliquons par analogie à notre Commission canonique les pouvoirs du court de la Sainte Rote Romaine pour les mêmes raisons de la situation de nécessité puisque la Rote elle-même est imbue de faux principes personnalistes. Là encore vaut le principe "Ecclesia supplet""."As for the judgements that we pronounce in the third instance, we apply, by analogy, to our Canonical Commission, the powers of the court of the Holy Roman Rota, for the same reasons of the situation of necessity, since the Rota is permeated with false personalist principles. There also the principle "the Church supplies" must be used."
That confession of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais places clearly in focus the problem of the schism:
It is lawful for someone to be empowered with or to be attributed with the powers of the Roman Rota?Does doing that constitute a schismatic act?
We cite here several quotations regarding schism used by the Society of St. Pius X itself and by the traditional priests of Campos, in the documents that they have published.
"Schism consists in attributing a supernatural authority upon those baptized independently of the Holy See"...
"By divine right and by the express will of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the potential to direct a portion of the Church can be put into act only by the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter. Only the Pope receives directly from God, at the moment of his ascension to the Holy See, the immediate jurisdiction upon all and each one of the faithful; and the Bishops receive from the Supreme Pontiff the flock that they should direct."The root of schism, therefore, for a human being (be he Bishop or not) is in the usurpation of this supernatural authority."
(Can Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrate Bishops without schism or disobedience? Supplement of Rome Aeterna – magazine of Catholic Tradition – Condensed from Fideliter n. 60).It "means, those are schismatics who refuse to be and to remain under authority, they refuse to participate in the unity of government given to the Mystical Body through an authentic jurisdictional way; this supposes something more than a simple disobedience. It is necessary that there be a rebellion: I recognize the legitimacy of the jurisdictional power, but I refuse to submit myself to the authority and recognize it as my superior. It implies a private species of rebellion prompted by a persistent contempt of the authority of the Church.
"For the obstinacy that is disobedience, will not be schism, as long as it does not bring a rebellion against the function of the Supreme Pontiff and of the Church. If I refuse to consider him as my superior, recognizing at the same time that he what he is, I fall in schism: I set myself apart from the unity of direction that Christ wanted to give to the Mystical Body and I proclaim practice and concretely my decision of acting as separated" .
(The Consecration of Bishops – Priestly Society of St. Pius X, p. 4).
Schism, therefore, is a persistent refusal to accept the authority of the Pope, and instituting a parallel government in the ecclesiastical body, thus breaking the unity of the Church.
Cardinal Journet, in his book L’Eglise du Verbe Incarné, commenting on what St. Thomas says regarding schism, affirms:
"The sin of schism is directly opposed to unity... It is the sin that spreads itself – whether it is willed directly or indirectly – to be separated from the unity created by charity... precisely, only those are schismatics who, of full degree and deliberation, are separated from the main unity created by the Church." (C. Journet, op. cit. vol II,p.823-850).
In a work of the priests of Campos we read that four causes of schism can exist; causes that can be given cumulatively:
"1- THE NEGATION OF A DOGMA OF THE CHURCH, that is to say a heresy. A better known example is Protestantism..."2- THE BREAK OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, or a break in the genealogical line that makes each Bishop a successor of the Apostles. That break is given in the case of an invalid consecration. This is the case with the Anglican Church...
"3- THE REBELLION AGAINST THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE, that is to say, to stop recognizing the primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff. An example of that break is the schism of the Eastern churches.
"4- THE USURPATION OF THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT OF THE POPE, FORMING A PARALLEL CHURCH.
"There are two types of power in the Church: the power of order, which is transmitted sacramentally, and the power of government (the apostolic mission of the Bishop, his jurisdiction: his diocese, his function), which proceeds only from the Pope.
"The present Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Paris, Father Patrick Valdrini explained it as well: "It is not the consecration of a bishop that creates schism, although this be a serious fault against the discipline of the Church; what consummates schism is to confer immediately to these bishops an apostolic mission. Therefore, this usurpation of the powers of the Sovereign Pontiff proves that a 'parallel Church' was established."
(Father FERNANDO ARÊAS RIFAN – Why the consecration of Bishops performed by Archbishop Lefebvre does not constitute schism. This article is a manuscript and is signed by Bishop Antonio of Castro Mayer, Bishop. Emeritus of Campos).
From all this we may conclude that to usurp, that is to say, to be empowered
or to be attributed unduly with the powers of the Pope, is schism.
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, in a letter that he sent us, affirmed:
1- that in the Society of St. Pius X courts of first and of second instance have been established;2- that "the powers of the Holy Roman Rota" have been given to the Canonical Commission of St. Charles Borromeo in order to issue judgements in the third instance;
The reasons for this were:
a) the personalist principles that permeate the present Holy Rota; the great number of declarations of matrimonial nullity based on canons 1095 and 1098 of the New Code of Canon Law;b the state of need created by these abuses;
Consequently, the Canonical Commission of St. Charles Borromeo of the Priestly
Society of St. Pius X is considered to legitimately assume the powers of
the Holy Roman Rota – so that it is a Papal court – based on canon 144
of the New Code of Canon Law (canon 209 of the old Code) that deals with
supplied jurisdiction.
In the Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church, supreme power belongs to the Pope, succeeding St. Peter and being Bishop of Rome. The Pope has judicial, legislative, and executive power over all the Church.
In the Church the division of powers does not exist, as it does in the liberal democracies. The power [in the Church] is one and emanates only from the Pope. Therefore whoever usurps any of the powers of the Pope, is usurping all the pontifical power.
"The Supreme Pontiff, by reason of the Primacy in the Church, not only occupies the supreme degree of the hierarchy, but in him resides all the power, which he can exercise in any form or moment, be it immediately through itself upon any person or thing, be it through ordinary courts or through delegated judges." (Tomás Barberena, Comentarios al CDC, vol. III, p. 310).
According to canon 1442 of the new Code of Canon Law:
"The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge of everyone Catholic and he judges personally through the ordinary Courts of the Holy See, or through judges delegated by Him."
And canon 1443 says:
"The ordinary Court constituted by the Roman Pontiff to receive appeals is the Roman Rota." (We recall that whoever approaches the tribunal of the SSPX must sign under oath not to approach any official tribunal. [translator’s note])
The Holy Roman Rota is, thus, the Papal Court for appeals, at any level of recourse, and, for some cases, in the first instance.
Canon 360 establishes that the Holy Roman Rota is a body of the Roman Curia, that speaks in name of the Pope and with the authority of the Pope:
C. 360: "The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the business of the universal Church through the Roman Curia, which acts in his name and with his authority for good and for the service of the Churches. The Curia is composed of… the Tribunals..."
The judges of the Rota are named directly by the Pope and this – as with all the other bodies of the Roman Curia – is a Papal vicariate, which is to say that they speak in the name of the Pope during the reign of the Pope.
The Holy Rota is also called Court of the Holy See, therefore, as Barberena says, "it is constituted for the Holy See and judges in name of the Pope" (Tomás G. Barberena, Comentarios al CDC, vol. III, p. 314)
The local tribunals, constituted by the Bishops in their dioceses, however, do not stop acting through delegation of Papal jurisdiction, according to canon 1142.
There is no doubt, therefore, that the Roman Rota, as well as all the
ecclesiastical courts instituted by the bishops in their dioceses, are
Papal courts; to usurp their powers, therefore, constitutes, in theory,
an act of usurping of Papal power, being, therefore, an act of schism.
The traditionalists put forward the following reasons, in order to establish tribunals for pronouncing judgements on marriage cases:
1- The adoption, by the judges of the "official tribunals" and of the Roman Rota, of personalist principles, that would render judgements "doubtful or completely invalid;"2- The excessive number of declarations of matrimonial nullity rendered by the Rota or by diocesan tribunals;
3- The "state of need of the faithful" whose salvation would be at risk, due to those abusive judgements or relaxations rendered by the canonical diocesan or Roman tribunals;
4- This situation of need would justify the establishment of a tribunal with the "supplied jurisdiction" expressed in canon 144 of the new Code of Canon Law.
The adoption of an erroneous philosophy, including a heretical one, on the part of judges, renders a tribunal illegitimate.
The legitimacy of a civil court originates with the State, that it represents, and not with the philosophy of each or of all its members.
In civil society, the courts of the State count on judges who ascribe to the most absurd philosophies, and such courts do not therefore lose legitimacy. The judges of the Court of São Paulo, of Campos or of Ecône can be liberals, marxists, Protestants, satanists or Masons, and no-one is allowed to organize parallel courts just because they object to these judges. Whoever would do this, would be promoting a rebellion or a revolution against the State, from which the legitimacy of the courts legally instituted originates.
The Church never, in any place, has declared that a Catholic had the right to establish parallel courts, in a case where the judges of the state adopted a heretical or unacceptable philosophy.
The same thing can be said in relation to wicked laws.
The sentences that judges pronounce, founded upon laws that derive from an erroneous or heretical philosophy would be, without doubt, unjust and completely invalid. But this would not render these same courts illegitimate. Neither would anyone be able to erase all their sentences as "doubtful or completely invalid".
Pontius Pilate was the judge responsible for the most wicked of all judgements. Meanwhile, when he questioned Our Lord whether He knew that Pilate had the power to of crucify Him or to free Him, Pilate had his legitimacy confirmed by the True God:
"You would have no power over Me, if it had not been given to you from above." (St. John, 19:11).
If the adoption of an erroneous or heretical philosophy on the part of the judges of a court renders that same court illegitimate, no court of the world today would have legitimacy.
Besides, before a judge can judge any matter, one would have to be able to judge the philosophy of the judge, to verify whether his judgement would be legitimate or not. This is patently absurd.
The same principles examined above are valid, without doubt, for ecclesiastical courts, that certainly in other historic periods also had judges who were followers of heterodox principles. And yet they did not have their legitimacy questioned by the Saints, who never instituted their own courts.
Besides, the refusal of the legitimacy of a pontifical court like the Holy Roman Rota signifies, in fact, the accusation that the Pope has stopped being legitimate; one would be able to say that the court lost its jurisdiction – not being suppressed by the Pope – only if the Pope had lost the mandate conferred to him by Christ. And that would be the acceptance of the sedevacantist thesis that the Society of St. Pius X has always condemned. Accepting that the Apostolic See is not vacant and that John Paul II is the Pope, the Society of St. Pius X, by establishing a court with the powers of the Roman Rota, falls into contradiction and into schism.
The excessive number of declarations of matrimonial nullity, whether from the Roman Rota, or from the diocesan tribunals, legitimizes the tribunals of the Society of St. Pius X.
If a court applies laws in a relaxed way or applies laws based on erroneous philosophical principles, such fact, as we saw, does not cause the illegitimacy of the court itself. Evil operation of an institution or the abuse of its principles not take away its legitimacy.
Neither does the argumentation follow that the Roman Rota and the diocesan tribunals have lost legitimacy because they declare an excessive number of marriage annulments, basing on canons unacceptable by catholic traditional doctrine (canons 1095 and 1098). When a law is erroneous or bad the law should be reformed and the court that applies it should not be declared illegitimate.
The argument of the magazine Iesus Christus must be taken a step further, by saying that the excessive number of declaratory judgements of matrimonial nullity would prove, not only the loss of the legitimacy of the Roman Rota, but also the legitimacy of the tribunals instituted by the Society of St. Pius X.
If that principle would be true, any Bishop, even if he would not be of the Society of St. Pius X, would be able, pointing to the same problems, to institute his own tribunal with the powers of the Rota, which would destroy completely the unity of the Church.
In short, why would only the SSPX now have the right to establish a tribunal with the powers of the Rota? and would whoever has given to the Society of St. Pius X that right and that power not confer it also to others?
Who named the members of the Canonical Commission of St. Charles Borromeo, giving them a right and a power that only a Pope can give?
Being vicarious Papal ecclesiastical judges, who, as we saw, speak in name of the Pope and give judgements in the name of the Pope, in whose name do the judges of the Canonical Commission of St. Charles Borromeo declare their judgements?
Therefore, the statement of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais creates the suspicion of schism. This would be sufficient to oblige us to break with the Society of St. Pius X, in order to maintain union with Rome and with the Pope.
The state of need of the faithful, whose salvation would be at risk, due to the relaxed judgements rendered by the tribunals whether diocesan or Roman, justifies the tribunals of the Fraternity.
The supposed "state of need of the faithful" claimed by the Society of St. Pius X seems nonexistent. To take upon themselves the right to establish tribunals parallel to the canonical ones, seems to us like a schismatic abuse.
Bishop Oscar de Oliveira teaches – "Whatever is not allowed according to the law, necessity makes it allowed." (apud P. Fernando Arêas Rifan, op. cit., pg. 14).
One must verify whether, in the case of marriage annulments, there is some circumstance that makes impossible – and not merely difficult or inconvenient – recourse to ecclesiastical courts canonically instituted. Then it would still have to be verified whether such a circumstance would be able to confer legitimately on any Bishop the power to establish his own tribunals, to the exclusion of Rome.
Practically, two possible hypothesis can be presented to priests:
A marriage submitted for the consideration of the priests of the SSPX is really invalid, in terms of the correct law, or it is valid.
In the first case – that of a couple whose marriage is really invalid – there would be no problem in resorting to the tribunals of the Church. As it is certain that such bodies are declaring marriage annulments with excessive facility, likewise it is certain that this marriage will see its right to such a declaration respected, and will not suffer injustice.
In the second case – that of a couple who contracted a valid marriage – the orthodox priest (traditionalist or not), who is consulted, is able to say to the couple that their marriage was legitimate and that there is not any cause of nullity. He can still notify them that a possible statement of nullity by an ecclesiastical court would have no value, keeping in mind that the modern law contemplates legitimate marriage annulment cases in front of God. It is possible that this couple, in spite of this, could resort to the ecclesiastical courts and to the Roman Rota and obtain a declaration of nullity through a wicked sentence. By the same token, in theory, it would be possible for a couple who have nullity rejected by the tribunals of the SSPX, to resort to the ecclesiastical courts and obtain it.
In that case, the orthodox priest would not accept that wicked sentence, and not would not recognize such an annulment. But he would not be able, for this reason, to stop accepting the legitimacy of the same court. As it is easy to perceive, in any of the hypotheses it would be possible to overturn, without any violation of the law of the Church and completely without any objection, the consequent errors of the bad doctrine of the judges and of the modern canonical law.
We have received news that, without any problem, another group of traditionalist priests acts in this way.
Therefore, there is no circumstance that makes the fulfillment of the law impossible. The state of need of the faithful, therefore, does not exist.
That state of need of the faithful would justify the institution of the tribunals with "supplied jurisdiction," just as is determined by canon 144 of the new Code of Canon Law.
To analyze this argument it will be necessary to study, although it be succinctly, in terms of Canon Law under what circumstances can occur the supplying of jurisdiction spoken of in canon 209 of the old Code (canon 144 of the present Code).
The power of jurisdiction, in the definition of Devoti, is:
"that power granted by Christ to the apostles and to their legitimate successors, to govern to the faithful, their subjects, in ecclesiastical matters."
(apud Vincenzo Politi, La Giurisdizione Ecclesiastica e la sua Delegazione, Milano, 1937, pg. 32).
Jurisdiction can be ordinary, when it is tied to specific office, or delegated, when it is attributed to a specific person.
Jurisdiction is what confers to the priest the faculty of exercising legitimately the power of order and the right of taking part in the government of the Church (P. Gualtero Devivier. Curso de Apologética Cristiana, 2ª Ed, Barcelona, vol. II p. 39).
Meanwhile, if some priest exercises some acts that would require jurisdiction without possessing it, the Church, in specific cases, supplies that lack of jurisdiction thus conferring legitimacy to those acts, in order to calm the consciences of the faithful.
The question was regulated by the old Code of Canon Law in the following terms:
"Canon 209 – the Church supplies jurisdiction both for the external and internal forum in common error and in a positive and probable doubt, of law as well as of fact."
The new law addresses the same matter this way:
"Canon 144 section 1º. In common error, whether of fact or of law, and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies the executive power of governance, for both the internal and the external forum."
Therefore, in the terms of the old law just as of the new one, one should speak only of supplying of jurisdiction in the case in which there occurs one of these two hypothesis: common error or probable and positive doubt.
A) common error:
"is that which affects to the assembly of members of a community, regarding the existence of ordinary or delegate jurisdiction, that is falsely attributed to someone" (R. Naz and others, Traité de Droit Canonique – Introduction Règles Génerales de Personnes, Letouzey et Ané, Editeurs, Paris, tome I, pg. 350).
The authors of the work cited give an example:
"At the time of a Feast, an extraordinary confessor is present in a church. It is believed that he has jurisdiction, but in reality he does not have it, having forgotten to ask for it from the Bishop. Some persons come to him for confession, few in number relative to the number of parishioners who have not thought to come to this confessor. There would be, in this case, common error. If, in fact, the other parishioners wanted to go to confession, they would fall necessarily into the same error"
(R. Naz and others, op. cit., t. I p. 350).
B) positive doubt:
"is that founded upon positive reasons, not upon simple ignorance; it is called probable if those reasons have weight... Examples of doubt relating to a fact: Has the time of jurisdiction already expired? Is the confessor still within the diocese for which he obtained jurisdiction? Is this person in danger of death? Some examples of doubt of law: Is such a sin reserved or an object of censure? Is it truly common error when the majority of the community does not participate?"
(R. Naz and others, op. cit., tome I pg. 351)
Having seen the conditions wherein jurisdiction is supplied by the Church, it must now be seen if some of these conditions are present in the case of the tribunals of the SSPX, which would confer on them the jurisdiction that they are claiming.
The answer can only be negative.
It must be noted that the error or the doubt required for the supplying of jurisdiction have for an object ordinary or delegated jurisdiction.
In the example of the error given above, the faithful suppose falsely that the priest has jurisdiction delegated by the Bishop and he in truth does not have it. In the examples of doubt, ordinary or delegated jurisdiction is necessarily affected.
In other words, what the Church evidently supplies, under specific circumstances, is the ordinary or delegated jurisdiction of those who do not possess it.
Now, in the case of the SSPX nowhere is any error spoken of, therefore no faithful supposes that some of the judges of its "Canonical Commission" possess ordinary or delegated jurisdiction.
Likewise, nowhere is probable and positive doubt spoken of, given that there is no doubt that the tribunals of the SSPX do not possess ordinary or delegated jurisdiction. They admit that they do not possess it.
Therefore, there is nowhere that we can speak of supplied jurisdiction.
However it must be noted that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais himself quoted, in Latin, the precise text of the new Canon Law that condemns him. Therefore, as we saw – and as His Excellency quoted – what the Church supplies, in the terms of the law, is only "the executive power of governing (potestas regiminis executivam)". And not the judicial one.
Commenting on this passage Antonio Viana affirms:
"Supplied jurisdiction can be employed in the exercise of neither the legislative power nor of the judicial power, but only in concrete actions by virtue of the executive power, as much with regard to office as also to delegation. Thus, for example, positive and probable doubts cannot exist, neither upon exercising the legislative power or the general administrative power (another thing is the application of the norm), nor when it is a matter of the exercise of the judicial power, where the moral certainty of the judge upon dictating the sentence is required."(cfr. cc. 1608 pars. 1 and 4; 1616 par. 1ª.)
Now, the tribunal of the SSPX arrogates to itself a supplied jurisdiction of the judicial power of the Church, which is explicitly denied by Canon Law.
Therefore, there is no supplied jurisdiction. The decisions of the tribunals
of the Society of St. Pius X – or of any another tribunal not authorized
by the Pope – do not move beyond the mere offering of opinions, without
some reflection in the legal order.
From everything that we have just examined, the establishment of ecclesiastical courts and of the body to which the powers of the Roman Rota are attributed by the Society of St. Pius X, seems to be an act evidently schismatic.
Aggravating Circumstances
As Bishop Tissier de Mallerais wrote, he was the one Archbishop Lefebvre asked to establish the Canonical Commission of St. Charles Borromeo, on January 15, 1991.
The name "Canonical Commission" does not make clear what its functions and purposes are. A "Canonical Commission" would barely be able to appoint an assembly of specialists in Canon Law, appointed to give simple legal concepts. This would be best and very acceptable. Never judgements, which would be proper of a court.
Now, the letter of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais makes it quite clear that the "Canonical Commission of St. Charles Borromeo" intends to render judgements, on the same level and with the same powers as the Roman Rota. It is established and intended, therefore, to be a true court.
It is curious that every court should have a public character, and yet the analogous "Rota" of Ecône has been kept in a great deal of secrecy for so many years.
So much so that many traditionalist priests of Campos did not even know of the existence of this Commission-Tribunal, or, at least they didn’t know that the right of pronouncing sentences with the powers of the Holy Roman Rota was given to it.
Bishop Licinio Rangel wrote and says the most contradictory things regarding the existence of what he called initially an "Office" for marriage cases.
The fact that the existence of the analogous "Rota" ecôniana had to be maintained in relative secret shows that the SSPX was afraid of the scandal and the suspicion of schism that it would provoke.
Having suspicion of schism, it is of a healthy prudence to reject such an intended court.
Today nobody would accept to take an injection with a syringe already used, because the risk of being infected by the AIDS virus is extremely dangerous. By the same token – and a great deal more, since the salvation of the soul is put at risk – running the risk of falling into schism cannot be accepted, by accepting that suspicious analogous "Rota" of Ecône, although founded by Archbishop Lefebvre.
The second aggravating circumstance of suspicion is the denial of the existence of the tribunal and the unstable, contradictory explanations – even to absurdity – of Bishop Rangel and of the various priests of Campos, to justify it. It left us with the very clear impression that they wanted to justify, at any cost, the unjustifiable.
A worse impression still was caused by the tantrums and the furious efforts and calumnies undertaken by various priests of Campos, when they knew that we took a position against that tribunal, suspecting that it was schismatic.
The existence of a "Rota" ecôniana raises a suspicion still more serious.
Considering the fact that the present Pope, John Paul II has, in fact, a phenomenologist, kantian and personalist philosophy, as well as a modernist theology; and keeping in mind that the faithful have even more need of a truly orthodox Pope, would the Society of St. Pius X not be able to carry its distorted view of the principle of supplied jurisdiction to the extent of electing an analogous "Pope"?
This is a suspicion and not an affirmation.
But if this had occurred, the constitution of a "Rota" in Ecône would be explained, since it is a pontifical court, named by the Pope, that speaks in name of the Pope and with the authority of the Pope.
Mindful of all these things, we the members of the Montfort Cultural Association declare that we want to keep ourselves in the Apostolic Roman Catholic Church, submissive to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, Pope John Paul II. And therefore we declare ourselves totally separated from the traditionalist movement of the Society of St. Pius X founded by Archbishop Lefebvre.
(Signed) Orlando Fedeli