What is Jurisdiction?

(Does the SSPX have any Jurisdiction?)

Contents

Introduction

The main reason given by the SSPX for maintaining their "independence" from the "Official Church" is that, we are told, the Official Church is no longer faithful to Church Law and Catholic Tradition. Yet, if we look real closely, since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1991, we'll find that the SSPX themselves are no longer faithful to the same Church Law and Catholic Tradition that they claim to defend.

You can't have it both ways: either you defend Church Law and Tradition, in which case you are bound to obey them, or you decide that you will not follow Church Law and Tradition, in which case you can't claim that you're defending them.

Based on the evidence we will present to you, we make two conclusions:

1. The obvious contradiction:

2. As a further consquence to the abuses of Church Law and Tradition, the SSPX is in schism.

We will base our discussion of Church Law and Schism using the 1983 Code of Canon Law (abbreviated as 1983 Code), but interpreted in the light of and with reference to the 1917 Code.
This follows the principle of interpretation laid down in the 1917 Code and repeated in the 1983 Code:

1983 Code:
Can. 6 §2. To the extent that the canons of this Code reproduce the former law, they are to be assessed in the light also of canonical tradition.
We shall rely on traditionally accepted interpreters of Canon Law. Among the traditional interpreters we shall rely on is Fr. Felice Cappello, SJ, whom Archbishop Lefebvre himself relied on. Archbishop Lefebvre quotes from Fr. Cappello's work "Summa Iuris Canonici" in the Ordonnances, which is a collection of duties and privileges of law which are accorded to members of the SSPX. The way we look at it: let the SSPX be judged by Archbishop Lefebvre's own canon law expert.
(in all places below where we quote from the English translation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, we use the Collins edition, which uses British English spellings. We have preserved the spelling used in their translation. In all cases where quotations are emphasized with bold face type, the emphasis is ours unless otherwise indicated).

Sources Used in this Study

click here to see a list of source documents

What is Jurisdiction?

When a priest is ordained or a bishop consecrated, they receive the power of orders. However, there are many cases where the Church has decided that in order for priests and bishops to exercise the power of orders, they must also possess jurisdiction (also known as the power of governance). The concept is quite simple, and is similar to the case of someone who has the qualifications to be a judge, and who now wishes to render judgements in civil law courts. Only when such a person has been duly elected or appointed by the competent authority can this person be said to have the power to render judgements that have any binding force.

Who has Jurisdiction over Whom?

In the Church there are clearly defined boundaries of jurisdiction of authority. Jurisdiction is defined in terms of territory and of persons. The Pope has jurisdiction over all Catholics (all persons) everywhere in the world (all territories):

Can. 331 The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power. (1983 Code)
Others have jurisdiction over a certain portion of Christ's Faithful (if they are within a certain territory or not):
Can. 136 Persons may exercise executive power over their subjects, even when either they themselves or their subjects are outside the territory, unless it is otherwise clear from the nature of things or from the provisions of law. (1983 Code)
In terms of jurisdiction over persons, according to the law, a diocesan bishop has ordinary jurisdiction over the laypeople and priests in his diocese. A religious superior has a lesser jurisdiction, which is over the members of his or her religious congregation (this means priests, brothers and sisters). This principle is found in the 1983 Code of Canon Law:
Can. 134 §1 In law the term Ordinary means, apart from the Roman Pontiff, diocesan Bishops and all who, even for a time only, are set over a particular Church or a community equivalent to it in accordance with can. 368, and those who in these have general ordinary executive power, that is, Vicars general and episcopal Vicars; likewise, for their own members, it means the major Superiors of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and of clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, who have at least ordinary executive power.
§2 The term local Ordinary means all those enumerated in §1, except Superiors of religious institutes and of societies of apostolic life.
§3 Whatever in the canons, in the context of executive power, is attributed to the diocesan Bishop, is understood to belong only to the diocesan Bishop and to those others in can. 381 §2 who are equivalent to him, to the exclusion of the Vicar general and the episcopal Vicar except by special mandate.
In terms of jurisdiction over territory, insofar as the SSPX is a religious congregation approved by the Church:
  1. The Superior General of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has territorial jurisdiction over members of the SSPX everywhere in the world.
  2. The District Superiors of the SSPX, such as Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Jacques Emily, have territorial jurisdiction over members of the SSPX within their respective Districts.
  3. The Secretary General of the SSPX, Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, has no territorial jurisdiction.

It is clear that Bishop Fellay and other SSPX superiors possess jurisdiction over the members of the SSPX (who are the priests, brothers and sisters of the SSPX), and not over the faithful who attend the SSPX Mass centers.

Can the SSPX claim Missionary status?

Certainly if SSPX superiors were missionaries with canonical territories, they would have Ordinary jurisdiction over the laypeople in those territories. Canon Law establishes the possible existence of personal prelatures, vicariates apostolic, and prefectures apostolic (cann. 370, 371 1983 Code). These are groups of faithful who either live in a diocese but are not under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop, or who live in an area where a diocese has not yet been established. SSPX superiors cannot claim this status, as it requires the approval of the Pope:

Can. 373 It is within the competence of the supreme authority alone to establish particular Churches; once they are lawfully established, the law itself gives them juridical personality. (1983 Code)
This being so, just as it is the case with Catholic faithful attending Mass at any church served by other religious orders, the laypeople who attend Mass at any SSPX chapel are under the jurisdiction of the local bishop.

When Someone has no Jurisdiction, the Church can Supply it

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais of the SSPX has himself admitted that the priests and bishops of the SSPX have no Ordinary jurisdiction over the laypeople who attend SSPX Mass centers. This he admitted in the document "Supplied Jurisdiction and Traditional Priests" by Angelus Press. Because of this, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais says that the priests and bishops of the SSPX claim another kind of jurisdiction, which is commonly called supplied jurisdiction. They or any priest can legitimately claim supplied jurisdiction. This is because, in certain cases where ordinary or delegated jurisdiction is lacking, the spirit of the law takes precedence over the letter of the law, and the Church Herself supplies jurisdiction so that a priest or bishop can act.

However, as we will see, in order to prevent abuses and total chaos, the Church has strictly defined when She will and will not supply jurisdiction.

When the Church Supplies Jurisdiction

The Church supplies jurisdiction to those who don't otherwise have it, in the following situations:

  1. When the Law of the Church concedes it
  2. At the request of the faithful, in the case of an excommunicated or schismatic priest (Canon 1335, 1983 Code)
  3. In a case of positive and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact (Canon 144, 1983 Code)
  4. In a case of common error, whether of fact or of law (Canon 144, 1983 Code)

1) Jurisdiction Conceded by Law

Jurisdiction must be given by the Church. The Church expresses Her will to supply jurisdiction by expressing it in law. Not only that, but the expression in law is necessary. Fr. Ludovicus Bender, O.P., expands on this idea (in Potestas Ordinaria et Delegata, 1957, #146):

"Reason asks only that the Church be able to supply jurisdiction. However not everything that the supreme authority can do, does the supreme authority in fact do. Indeed, it is from the supreme authority that a supply [of jurisdiction] is certainly possible, but at same time it does not follow that it would be useful to the life of the Church that the supplying [of jurisdiction] be an active right. The custom of supplying [jurisdiction] is certainly not a natural right. A positive right is not valid by its usefulness alone. If it is useful, [such a right] must also be decreed, instituted and promulgated by a human legislator."
As Fr. Bender says, it is necessary for the Church to express in law how and when jurisdiction will be suplied. From this we conclude that if jurisdiction is not supplied according to the law, it is not suppled at all.

Fr. Bender explicitly states elsewhere that it is the law itself that confers jurisdiction (Potestas Ordinaria et Delegata, #142):

"the law itself confers jurisdiction extraordinarily, to each act. And this is according to the common good."
In two places the law speaks of what kinds of jurisdiction the Church will supply:
  1. Can. 144 (1983 Code), which repeats can 209 (1917 Code)

    2. (This refers to Jurisdiction supplied in cases of common error and in cases of positive and probable doubt).
  2. Can. 1335 (1983 Code), which repeats can. 2261 §2, 3 (1917 Code)

    3. (This refers to Jurisdiction supplied to excommunicated and schismatic priests).

Can. 144 §1 In common error, whether of fact or of law, and in positive and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and the internal forum.
§2 The same norm applies to the faculties mentioned in can. 883, 966, and 1111 §1. (1983 Code)
Can 883 refers to the sacrament of Confirmation; 966 to Confession; 1111 §1 to Matrimony.
Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of the sacraments or sacramentals or the exercise of a power of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever this is necessary to provide for the faithful who are in danger of death. If a latae sententiae [automatic] censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever one of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of the power of governance; for any just reason it is lawful to make such a request. (1983 Code)

Can 2261. §1 An excommunicated priest is forbidden to celebrate Holy Mass and to administer the Sacraments and sacramentals, with the following exceptions:
§2 The faithful may, saving the exceptions in the following paragraph, ask for any good reason an excommunicated priest for the Sacraments and sacramentals, above all when there are no other ministers, in which case the excommunicated priest who is asked to administer the Sacraments may do so, and he is not obliged to inquire for the reason why he was requested.
§3 From an excommunicatus vitandus [a publicly excommunicated person] as well as from another excommunicated priest whose excommunication was pronounced in the ecclesiastical court by either condemnatory or declaratory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution, in accordance with Canons 882 and 2252, and also, if there are no other ministers present, for the other Sacraments and sacramentals. (1917 Code)

 To summarize the above, the Church supplies jurisdiction for a priest to be able to:
  1. perform the sacraments
  2. administer sacramentals
  3. perform unspecified acts of jurisdiction

The Church could grant this jurisdiction in the case of:

  1. a request by one of the faithful (can. 1335, 1983 Code [also can. 2261, 1917 Code] )
  2. common error (can. 144, 1983 Code [also can. 209, 1917 Code] )
  3. positive and probable doubt (can. 144, 1983 Code [also can. 209, 1917 Code] )

2) Can SSPX Priests claim Jurisdiction because of being requested by the Faithful?

When the faithful can ask an excommunicated priest for sacraments or sacramentals, this is an extraordinary granting of jurisdiction to the excommunicated priest, considering that it is stated in Can 1331 (1983 Code):

Can. 1331 §1 An excommunicated person is forbidden:
    2º to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;
    3º to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, functions or acts of governance.
Commenting on canon 2261 (1917 Code), Fr. Cappello says (Summa Iuris Canonici, vol. III, #513):
"This arrangement is introduced in favor of the faithful, not however in favor of the excommunicated person himself."
In this case, it is the act of the faithful asking for the sacraments, believing that the priest has jurisdiction to act, that causes the Church to grant jurisdiction to an excommunicated priest, and not the desire of the priest to act.

It is immediately obvious that the members of the SSPX cannot claim to have jurisdiction according to the provisions of can. 1335 (1983 Code), because this canon applies only to priests and bishops under censure, and SSPX priests and bishops have for years now been assuring the faithful that they are not really excommunicated or suspended. If SSPX priests and bishops are not excommunicated or suspended, then they cannot claim jurisdiction from a law that grants jurisdiction to someone who is excommunicated or suspended.

3) Can SSPX Priests claim Jurisdiction because of Doubt?

Doubt exists in a situation where someone is not sure whether he has jurisdiction. (In other words, I might or I might not have jurisdiction). Doubt, in this case, is something that exists in the mind of the priest (or bishop). An example of this doubt would be a priest who has doubt in his mind whether or not he has jurisdiction to hear confessions when he returns to his diocese after an absence of several years. If there are no serious reasons to support either the existence or absence of jurisdiction, the doubt is negative; if there are reasons to support either side, the doubt is positive.

SSPX priests and bishops have no doubts about their jurisdiction because they know they don't have jurisdiction from the local bishop. Therefore they can't rely on a question of doubt for supplied jurisdiction.

4) Can SSPX Priests claim Jurisdiction because of Common Error?

Common error exists in a situation where people commonly believe (erroneously) that the person acting has jurisdiction to act. (In other words, the people believe: "he's doing it, so he must be able to do it").

For jurisdiction to be supplied in a case of common error, there must be:

  1. A priest performing a specific action
  2. A group of people who see the priest acting
  3. The same group of people believe that the priest has the authority to do what he is doing

If all of the above conditions are met, the Church supplies the priest with the jurisdiction to perform the action that the people believe he can perform.

In the understanding of the law of common error, "common" means that most people, or at least a significant group of people, are making the error. According to Fr. Bender (in Potestas Ordinaria et Delegata, #156):

"Just about any notable group, for example a parish, or a distinct part of a parish, seems to be capable of the common error of which Canon 209 [1917 Code] speaks."
Whenever common error exists, it is always an error made on the part of the people. The situation most often used as an example of common error is that of a priest hearing confessions. Normally, the bishop of the place would give the priest jurisdiction to hear confessions in that diocese. According to the letter of the law, it is necessary for the bishop to grant jurisdiction. However, people observing the situation would assume that the priest has the proper authority to do what he is doing. Some could even make the error that the bishop's permission is not necessary. In either case, the error is an error made by the people, but since they make this error in good faith and the lack of jurisdiction is not their fault, the Church supplies the necessary jurisdiction to the priest.

Nor is it necessary that every person in the group make the error for the error to be common. Indeed, some in the group may know that the priest acting has no jurisdiction, and they don't make the error; but because the error is common among the group, the priest has supplied jurisdiction to act anyway.

According to Fr. Bender, (in Potestas Ordinaria et Delegata, #160, footnote 32) it is the perception of the priest acting, on the part of the people, that causes common error:

"When a priest sits in a confessional in a public church, we have the basis for public error. But this is not the cause. We have the cause if it is perceived by many. This perception is the cause of common error."
SSPX priests and bishops can rely on common error for jurisdiction to be supplied by the Church, because there is a group of people (in the SSPX chapels) who see them acting, and these people believe that the SSPX priests and bishops can do what they are doing.

The SSPX has Jurisdiction to Confer the Sacraments

It is clear from the above that the Church supplies jurisdiction to the priests and bishops of the SSPX in order for them to confer the Sacraments and Sacramentals.

This is because of Common Error:   the priests and bishops of the SSPX are seen by most of the people to be acting as priests and bishops of a religious congregation performing a priestly ministry in public churches. Although these churches are not called parishes according to the law, nonetheless, the people see them as parishes. Whether or not the priests and bishops of the SSPX really are working as parish priests, this does not matter. For, as Fr. Bender said above, it is the perception of the people that causes common error, and if the people see the Society priests acting like parish priests in churches that look like parishes, then this perception on their part will cause the error that the priests have jurisdiction to act like priests in a parish. And as surely as the people commonly make this error, the Church will just as surely grant jurisdiction for the priests and bishops of the SSPX to do what priests and bishops do in parishes, namely confer the Sacraments and Sacramentals.

When the Church does NOT Supply Jurisdiction

The Church does indeed supply jurisdiction in some cases. But the Church doesn't supply jurisdiction in every case in which the Church could supply it. As Fr. Cappello says (Summa Iuris Canonici, vol. II, #264):

"The Church does not supply jurisdiction in every case in which she could supply it, but only in those cases insofar as her will to supply it is expressly or at least tacitly manifest. The reason for which the Church supplies jurisdiction, is not a private good, but the common good of souls." (#264)
The Church does not supply jurisdiction in the following cases:
  1. When the Law of the Church does not concede it
  2. Retroactively, to give Jurisdiction to an Act already performed without Jurisdiction
  3. When someone without Jurisdiction acts without being requested to act by the Faithful [whenever Jurisdiction depends on such a request]
  4. When someone without Jurisdiction acts without even having a positive and probable doubt that he has the Jurisdiction to act [whenever Jurisdiction depends on such a doubt]
  5. When someone without Jurisdiction acts where there is no common error (common belief) that he has the Jurisdiction to act [whenever Jurisdiction depends on such a error/belief]

Jurisdiction not Supplied Retroactively

What would happen if the members of the SSPX had jurisdiction supplied to them by the Church in some cases but not in others? Does the jurisdiction supplied to them in one case allow them to act in a case where the Church does not supply? According to Fr. Cappello, quoted below, the simple answer is NO, the Church must supply jurisdiction separately in each case:

"Jurisdiction is supplied to someone in a case where he does not possess it; but nonetheless whenever he acts, requiring jurisdiction, in each case the law concedes jurisdiction in the act itself, but, once the act is performed, he does not retain jurisdiction, but he is, as he was before the act, without it." (Fr. Cappello, Summa Iuris Canonici, vol. II, #264)
Fr. Francisco Xavier Wernz, SJ and Fr. Petri Vidal, SJ say basically the same thing in their commentary on Canon Law (Ius Canonicum, 1943, vol. II, De Personis, #379), as does Fr. Bender (Potestas Ordinaria et Delegata, #142)

Therefore, just because SSPX priests have jurisdiction to act in one case (like conferring sacraments) doesn't mean that they can presume to have jurisdiction to act in other cases (like granting marriage annulments).

The SSPX does not have Jurisdiction to Grant Marriage Annulments or to Impose Censures on Laypeople

Any jurisdiction that SSPX priests might have is supplied by the Church because of common error. The people see the SSPX priests and bishops acting, and these people believe (in error) that these priests and bishops have the authority to do what they are doing. And because of this, the Church supplies these priests and bishops with the jurisdiction to do what they are doing.

However, common error is very specific. If the people believe that a priest can hear confessions, then the Church will supply him with the jurisdiction to hear confessions; but not any jurisdiction to do anything else, unless the people also believe that he can do that thing too. For the SSPX, people see the priests and bishops of the SSPX acting like a religious congregation doing pastoral work in parishes. And no more. As Fr. Bender says (Potestas Ordinaria et Delegata, #154):

"The error of which the canon [Can. 144, 1983 Code] is concerned is not indeed just any error with regard to jurisdiction ...it is a question of an error with a determined object or of an error with regard to a determined matter ...the error which believes this man to be able to exercise the jurisdiction of the office of parish priest (for he is seen doing it, with no-one contradicting him), implicitly believes him to have as much jurisdiction as parish priests have due to their office."
The people see the SSPX priests and bishops acting like priests and bishops of a religious order, serving the people in parishes. And so, the Church will supply to the priests and bishops of the SSPX that jurisdiction that priests and bishops of a religious order would ordinarily have. And no more.

Certainly people commonly expect priests of a religious congregation working parishes to receive the jurisdiction to perform marriages and hear confessions, and bishops of a religious congregation to receive the jurisdiction to perform confirmations. This is what would happen in a normal situation (where priests don't have to rely on common error for their jurisdiction). And if priests of a religious congregation were to perform marriages and hear confessions, and not in fact have the jurisdiction to do so, then among the people the error that these priests did have the necessary jurisdiction to do these things would certainly be common, and the Church would supply jurisdiction. However, people would never commonly expect the superiors of a religious congregation to be able to grant marriage annulments, or impose censures on laypeople, since this would never happen in a normal situation. And so the Church would not supply jurisdiction for them to do this. As Fr. Bender says (Potestas Ordinaria et Delegata, #154):

"The Church doesn't supply [jurisdiction] if everyone makes the error that I have jurisdiction to hear confessions, and I perform an act of dispensation, for which I have no jurisdiction."
So, we see that the SSPX has jurisdiction for conferring the sacraments, but no jurisdiction for granting marriage annulments or imposing censures on laypeople. The next question we must ask: By assuming to themselves the jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments and impose censures on laypeople, is the SSPX in schism?

What is Schism?

We commonly think of schism as a separation from the Pope. The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique gives a more precise definition of schism (Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 1939, col. 1286):

"a desired separation of unity or of ecclesiastical communion"
St. Thomas Aquinas says something very similar (S.T. II-II.39.1), when he says that schismatics:
"are those who, willfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church ...Schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy."
Thus we see that schism implies not just a separation from the Pope, but from the Church in general. The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique also says that schism can also be caused by a separation from any bishop in union with the Pope (Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 1939, col. 1289):
"to separate oneself from a legitimate bishop, and to raise up against his altar a rival altar, is to separate oneself from communion with the Universal and Only Church."
This is the sense of the definition given in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, where a schismatic is anyone who refuses to be subject to the Pope, or to be in communion with the other members of the Church:
Can 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by Divine and Catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Considering that schism is a separation from the Church, it comes as no surprise that Canon Law says that a schismatic is automatically excommunicated (Can. 1364 §1, 1983 Code):
Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.

Can. 194 §1 The following are removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself:
    1° one who has lost the clerical state;
    2° one who has publicly defected from the catholic faith or from communion with the Church;
    3° a cleric who has attempted marriage, even a civil one.
§2 The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be insisted upon only if it is established by a declaration of the competent authority.

To summarize the above commentary on schism: schism is a separation from the Pope, from a Bishop united to the Pope, or from the Church. Schism is caused by a deliberate action, and results in automatic excommunication.

Two Kinds of Schism: Direct & Indirect

According to the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, there are two kinds of schism: direct schism and indirect schism.

Direct schism takes place if someone, both by their words and by their actions, deliberately wants to separate from the Church.

Indirect schism however, takes place if someone performs a schismatic action, while stating that they don't intend to be schismatic:

"The sin of schism, like all sins, like that of homicide for example, can thus be willed directly or indirectly. At the limit, we would have the case of a schismatic despite himself, less imaginary than one would think: of a man who does not want to separate himself from unity, but who does such things, or in such a manner, and who stubbornly does them in such a way that the rupture of unity fatally follows." (Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 1939, col. 1303)
The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique then gives the example of Bishop Döllinger, who caused a schism after refusing to accept the infallible decrees of Vatican Council I:
"A typical case, at least from the psychological point of view, was that of Döllinger, who always claimed his desire to remain in the unity [of the Church] and who never accepted the label 'Old Catholic'."
To summarize: indirect schism occurs when, by their words, someone says they don't want to separate from the Church, but by their actions, they do something that does separate them from the Church. Whether it is a case of direct or indirect schism, a person guilty of schism is outside the Church.

Disobedience is not an Act of Schism

The case of Archbishop Lefebvre refusing to accept some of the decrees of Vatican Council II, is not really a parallel to that of Bishop Döllinger, who caused a schism after refusing to accept the infallible decrees of Vatican Council I, as Vatican II did not promulgate any infallible decrees. Some parts of the decrees of Vatican II, those parts that contain infallible teachings from previous Church Councils, are infallible, but on the whole, the decrees themselves are "Pastoral" teachings, and they simply cannot be infallible. Archbishop Lefebvre without any question accepted the infallible parts of all the documents of Vatican II, but he did not accept the pastoral teachings that contradict what was previously taught by the Church.

It should be obvious that the refusal to be subject to the Pope, which is schism, is more than mere disobedience. An example of disobedience would be the case of the Jesuits who disobeyed the Pope in the 1770's. In 1773 the Jesuit Order was suppressed by Pope Clement XIV for purely political reasons. The vast majority of Jesuits obeyed the unjust, universal suppression. A select group of Jesuits in Poland and Prussia, who saw the injustice, and, therefore, the illegality of the act of suppression, DISOBEYED the Pope's order, and continued active ministry. Less than a half century later, the active defiance of these faithful Jesuits towards the Pope was vindicated by the complete restoration of the Order. There was never any question that those Jesuits who had disobeyed the Pope were ever in schism.

Another example of disobedience not being schism comes from our own time. It is quite common for bishops to disobey the Pope today, (the Pope condemns General Absolution, the bishops support General Absolution; the Pope condemns women priests, the bishops support women priests) yet there is never any talk of these rebellious bishops being in schism.

Consecrating Bishops is not an Act of Schism

As we will show, the penalty of automatic excommunication for consecrating a bishop without papal permission is declared by law in order to be a deterrent, and not because consecrating a bishop is a schismatic act.

Can. 1382 (1983 Code) declares the penalty of automatic excommunication in the case of a bishop who consecrates another bishop without permission of the Pope:

Can. 1382 Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
However, Can. 1323 (1983 Code) also provides that whenever someone acts in what they believe to be a case of necessity, any penalties declared by law do not apply:
Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
    4º acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
    7º thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.
On the day he consecrated the four bishops, Archbishop Lefebvre publicly stated that he considered that he was acting in a case of necessity:
"We find ourselves in a case of necessity. We have done everything to try to make Rome understand that it must return to the attitude of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors...This ecumenism and all these errors, this collegiality, all of this is contrary to the Faith of the Church and is in the midst of destroying the Church. This is why we are convinced that by performing these consecrations today, we are obeying the call of these Popes and consequently the call of God as they represent Our Lord Jesus Christ." (Archbishop Lefebvre, 30 June 1988)
At the same time, Archbishop Lefebvre stated his intention NOT to become a schismatic:
"There is no question for us of separating from Rome or of subjecting ourselves to some power not belonging to Rome, nor of setting up some kind of parallel Church as for example the bishops of Palmar de Troya did in Spain, having nominated a Pope and formed a college of cardinals. There is absolutely no question for us to do likewise. Far from us the miserable thought of straying away from Rome. It's quite the opposite, for this ceremony we're doing as a token of our devotion to Rome." (Archbishop Lefebvre, 30 June 1988)
Remember that we saw above that there are two requirements for indirect schism:
  1. expressing by your words that you have no intention to be schismatic
  2. performing an action that is schismatic.

Archbishop expressed by his words that he did not want to separate himself from the Church. Thus, Archbishop Lefebvre would have placed himself in indirect schism by consecrating the four bishops, only if the act of consecrating bishops is a schismatic act.

We have the following comment by Fr. Patrick Valdrini, Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law in Paris. Fr. Valdrini declared in an interview for the publication "Valeurs actuelles" that the mere consecrating of a bishop is not an act of schism:

"It is not the ordination of a bishop that creates schism, although it is a serious offence against the Church's discipline; what consummates a schism is subsequently giving this bishop an apostolic mission (precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre hasn't done). This usurpation of the Pope's powers would clearly indicate that one is constituting a parallel Church." (Valeurs actuelles - 4 July 1988, p.18) (essay by Fr. Emily, Communicantes July 1989, p. 13)
Further to this argument of Fr. Valdrini is the argument from Pope Pius XII himself. On April 9, 1957, the Holy Office, under the authority of Pope Pius XII declared the penalty of automatic excommunication to anyone who consecrated a bishop without the Pope's permission. This penalty of automatic excommunication did not exist before this date. (Prior to this, as we find in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Can. 2370, existing Church discipline gave the penalty of automatic suspension only). The reason that the Pope declared this penalty was to stop the pro-Communist bishops in China from consecrating other pro-Communist bishops without his permission.

Any act of schism results in an automatic excommunication. On the other hand, if some action does not result in automatic excommunication, it cannot be a schismatic act. But for nearly 2,000 years, before Pope Pius XII increased the penalty to that of automatic excommunication, there was no automatic excommunication for anyone consecrating a bishop without the Pope's permission. Therefore, consecrating a bishop without the Pope's permission cannot be a schismatic act.

This further confirms what we said above: the conferral of Holy Orders and the conferral of Jurisdiction are two separate actions. Archbishop Lefebvre was very clear: he was conferring the grace of the Episcopacy in Holy Orders, which was not schismatic, but not jurisdiction, which would be schismatic.

Therefore there was no schism on June 30, 1988.

Usurping Jurisdiction is an Act of Schism

Following the arguments above, usurping the Pope's jurisdiction is an act of schism. This we will now prove.

We know that the Pope has received jurisdiction for the whole Church directly from Christ. Pope Leo XIII said in his encyclical Satis Cognitum of June 29, 1896:

All other bishops have jurisdiction directly from Pope, and they depend on him. In this way they share in the Pope's fullness of jurisdiction, in order that they may govern the part of the Church entrusted to them. Pope Innocent III said to the Patriarch of Constantinople: Suarez said the same thing: Pope Pius VI said the same thing (in his letter 'Deessemus', Sept. 16, 1788): The Power of the Keys

Certainly everyone would agree that to set yourself up as a rival to the Pope or a bishop in union with him is an act of schism. Pope Leo XIII said:

However, to usurp jurisdiction from what belongs to the Pope or is not conceded by law is also an act of schism. The symbol often used for the Pope's jurisdiction is the Power of the Keys. This symbol was first used by Jesus Himself, when He conferred upon St. Peter, and in succession upon all the Popes, the power of jurisdiction over the whole Church: Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to St. Peter only (and hence only to the Pope), and not to the other apostles (and hence not to the other bishops). Pope Leo XIII quoted Optatus of Milevis, who opposed the Donatist schism, in order to make the point that usurping the jurisdiction that belongs to the Pope is an act of schism. Optatus used the symbol of the Keys to represent jurisdiction: The 'striving to obtain for yourselves the keys of the kingdom of heaven' is a direct reference to bishops who try to usurp the jurisdiction that belongs to the Pope. Note that Optatus says that those who strive to obtain keys (or usurp jurisdiction) are fighting against the chair of Peter. And Pope Leo XIII says that anyone who fights against the chair of Peter is a schismatic. Hence anyone who usurps the jurisdiction of the Pope is in schism.

Therefore if any bishop tries to usurp the jurisdiction that belongs to the Pope, it is an act of schism, whether the bishop who usurps jurisdiction wants to be a schismatic or not.

Jurisdiction: Is the SSPX in Schism?

The SSPX hierarchy could have obtained Jurisdiction in one of three ways:
  1. Jurisdiction was given to them by someone who has Jurisdiction, like a diocesan bishop or the Pope
  2. Jurisdiction was given to them by the Law of the Church
  3. The SSPX has taken Jurisdiction upon themselves

We know that the SSPX has not been given Jurisdiction by the Pope or any other bishop. That leaves the possibility of having Jurisdiction given by law.

We have already seen above that the law has given Jurisdiction to the SSPX for conferring the sacraments.

We have also seen above that the law does not give Jurisdiction to the SSPX to grant marriage annulments or to impose censures on laypeople.

Thus, if the SSPX claims to have jurisdiction for anything other than conferring the sacraments, it is because they have usurped this jurisdiction. And, if the SSPX has usurped jurisdiction, they are in schism.

Effects of Schism

In the same encyclical we have been quoting, Pope Leo XIII made a final point regarding bishops who go into schism:

    "Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors" (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896)

As a final note, if it is true that the SSPX is in schism, we must bear in mind what is said about schismatics in the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (col. 1293):

    "their sacraments are valid, but without any fruit of salvation"

Conclusions

Conclusion #1: Beyond the Conferral of the Sacraments and sacramentals, the SSPX priests and bishops have no Jurisdiction
The Law grants SSPX priests and bishops the Jurisdiction do what priests and bishops of a religious congregation commonly do, but no more, and the Law does not grant SSPX priests and bishops the Jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments or impose censures on laypeople.

Conclusion #2: Beyond the Conferral of the Sacraments and sacramentals, the Acts of SSPX priests and bishops are invalid
If SSPX priests and bishops would try to do anything other than what priests and bishops of a religious congregation commonly do, like grant marriage annulments or impose censures on laypeople, then these acts would be done with no jurisdiction, and would be invalid.

Conclusion #3: If the SSPX claim to have the Jurisdiction to perform acts beyond the Conferral of the Sacraments and sacramentals, they have usurped this jurisdiction which belongs to the Pope
Neither the Pope, the bishops nor the Law have given the SSPX the Jurisdiction to perform acts beyond the Conferral of the Sacraments and sacramentals. Therefore if the SSPX claims this Jurisdiction, they have usurped it unto themselves.

Conclusion #4: If the SSPX have usurped the jurisdiction that belongs to the Pope, they are in schism
Anyone who usurps the Jurisdiction that belongs to the Pope, attacks the authority of the Pope directly, and this is an act of schism. Therefore, if the SSPX has usurped this jurisdiction, they are in schism.

Return to Directory Page