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:
Based on the evidence we will present to you, we make two conclusions:
1. The obvious contradiction:
2. As a further consequence 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).
click here to see a list of source documents
"It is true that our sentences... replace the sentences of the Roman Rota." Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Econe, August 24, 1998
With this statement, given at a secret conference for SSPX superiors on the subject of SSPX marriage annulments, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais announced quite clearly that:
The result is clear: With its marriage tribunal, the SSPX deliberately intends to replace the decisions made by Rome. This is a deliberate act of setting up a parallel governing authority in opposition to the governing authority of Rome. This is an act of schism.
Besides the question of schism, people have another serious question regarding SSPX marriage annulments:
Does the SSPX have jurisdiction to do grant marriage annulments?
This is not an idle question, for if the SSPX does NOT have the jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments, then:
Let us examine both the question of schism and that of validity of SSPX marriage annulments.
Summary of our discussion of SSPX Marriage Annulments:
Chronology of Events related to SSPX Marriage Annulments:
Conclusions:
The existence of SSPX marriage annulments was officially confirmed by Bishop Williamson in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors of March 3, 1998. This was the first official public announcement made to the people regarding SSPX marriage annulments, and it came 13 months after the annulments were announced to the SSPX clergy by Bishop Fellay.
In this letter, Bishop Williamson admits that SSPX superiors know they don't have Ordinary jurisdiction to grant any marriage annulments. From canon law we know that this belongs to the Pope (Can. 1442, 1983 Code), and the local bishop of the diocese (Can. 1419, 1983 Code):
Can. 1442 The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the whole catholic world. He gives judgement either personally, or through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See, or through judges whom he delegates.Can. 1419 §1 In each diocese and for all cases which are not expressly excepted in law, the judge of first instance is the diocesan Bishop. He can exercise his judicial power either personally or through others, in accordance with the following canons.
We have already shown elsewhere that because the SSPX does not possess Ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful, any jurisdiction that the SSPX might have to grant marriage annulments would have to be supplied by the Church by virtue of common error. We have proven this in another document, "What is Jurisdiction?" To see this document click here.
Basically, common error means that if there is a situation where several people in ignorance (of the facts of schism, etc.) see an SSPX priest hearing confessions, and then believe that this SSPX priest has the permission (etc.) to hear confessions, then these people make an error. But because it not their fault that they make this error, if the people go to confession, even if the priest does not have the faculties granted by law to hear confessions, the Church in Her mercy grants the priest the jurisdiction to hear confessions for this group of people for this particular occasion. There are two arguments against the existence of jurisdiction due to common error in the case of the SSPX granting marriage annulments:
There is no Common Error for SSPX Marriage Annulments
A. SSPX Marriage Annulments are Secret
B. Priests working in parishes, and bishops who don't head dioceses
never get jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments
A. SSPX Marriage Annulments are Secret
We find out that the SSPX has kept their marriage annulments a big secret from the laypeople. This secret was exposed by:
In the wake of these letters, Bishop Williamson responded with his letter of on March 3, 1998. In his letter, Bishop Williamson admitted the secrecy, when he stated that the question of the SSPX granting marriage annulments:
"might have been better left in private."
But we might ask, if there is nothing wrong with granting marriage annulments, why had these marriage annulments been kept a big secret from the laypeople?
Furthermore, the secrecy of the annulments has serious repercussions regarding their validity. For, if the granting of annulments is secret, then knowledge of these annulments is not common, but it is private. And so any error on the part of the people regarding these annulments must also be private. And as Archbishop Lefebvre's own canon law expert, Fr. Cappello, says (Summa Iuris Canonici, Liber II, #270):
"The Church does not supply jurisdiction if the error is private."
Fr. Dominicus Prümmer, OP, whose book "Manuale Theologiae Moralis" is used by all SSPX priests in their seminary studies, also says in this same book (Manuale Theologiae Moralis, 1953, vol. III, #413):
"It is certain that the Church does not supply jurisdiction when the error is private."
Fr. Bender also says (Potestas Ordinaria et Delegata, 1957, #155):
"In order for the Church to supply jurisdiction, it is not enough for there to be an error, but this error must be common."
Fr. Bender also goes into more detail (Potestas Ordinaria et Delegata, #160):
"For a public fact to cause an error, it is not enough for the fact to take place, but it is also required that men perceive this fact, directly or indirectly (by another means). As often as this fact is known by only a few, this cause does not produce an error among many and in like manner does not render an error which can be called common or public."
And so: it is not possible that the error concerning the jurisdiction possessed by the SSPX to grant marriage annulments be a common error, if the knowledge that the SSPX grants marriage annulments is not common knowledge.
And if the error is not common, then it is not possible that the Church has supplied jurisdiction due to common error for the SSPX to grant secret marriage annulments.
In other words: if the SSPX marriage annulents were publicly known, the Church could have granted jurisdiction for the SSPX to do them, but since they were secret, the Church did not.
In his letter, Bishop Williamson says that the SSPX merely "may reasonably assume" that they have jurisdiction. There is a big difference between assuming that you have something and actually having it.
But now that it is publicly known that the SSPX is granting marriage annulments, would the Church not now supply jurisdiction retroactively to validate the SSPX marriage annulments already given in the past? Fr. Bender assures us (Potestas Ordinaria et Delegata, #147) that the answer is NO, the Church would NOT do this:
"The Church and her many teachers permit juridical acts to be such that, once invalidly performed, they can be validated by no human power, neither in themselves nor in their juridical effects."
We now look at the second argument against the existence of common error.
B. Priests working in parishes, and bishops who don't head dioceses never get jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments
Even considering that it is now public knowledge that the SSPX is granting marriage annulments, the SSPX still can't rely on common error for the jurisdiction to grant future marriage annulments. This is because common error is very specific. For a more detailed discussion of this question, see the document "What is Jurisdiction?", or click here.
Basically, if the people believe that a priest can hear confessions, then the Church will supply him with the jurisdiction to hear confessions; but not the jurisdiction to do anything else, unless the people also believe that he can do that thing too. In hte case of the SSPX, people see the priests and bishops of the SSPX acting like a religious congregation doing pastoral work in parishes. And no more. And so the Church will supply the SSPX priests and bishops with the jurisdiction to act like priests and bishops of a religious order working in parishes. And no more.
And so, the Church will supply SSPX priests and bishops the jurisdiction
to confer the sacraments and sacramentals, but not to grant marriage
annulments, because priests and bishops of a religious order working in
parishes would NEVER grant marriage annulments.
The SSPX Canonical Mission doesn't include Marriage Annulments
There is one more possible way in which the SSPX could claim jurisdiction. This is stated in the book by the SSPX priest Fr. Pivert, "Schism or Not?," (1995, Angelus Press, pp 39-40). What Fr. Pivert says is that in canonically erecting the SSPX as a religious congregation in the church, Bishop Charrière of Fribourg gave the SSPX a canonical mission. And, along with the mission, the bishop would have certainly given the SSPX the jurisdiction to do the job.
However, we know what kind of canonical mission was given by Bishop Charrière to the SSPX: it is stated in the purpose of the SSPX found in the Statutes he approved. These statutes were written by Archbishop Lefebvre, and show the purpose of the SSPX as Archbishop Lefebvre intended it. The purpose of the SSPX is: "the Priesthood and whatever pertains to it and nothing but what concerns it" (Statutes II.1) and "A second purpose of the Fraternity is to assist the sanctification of priests by providing them with opportunities for retreats and recollections." (Statutes, III.2). It is evident that the SSPX cannot use the canonical mission received from Bishop Charrière as a support for any jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments, as the granting of marriage annulments cannot be considered a part of "the Priesthood and whatever pertains to it" nor of "the sanctification of priests by providing them with opportunities for retreats and recollections." It is also evident from the Statutes that Archbishop Lefebvre never intended the SSPX to grant marriage annulments.
Hence, the SSPX has no jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments. It seems reasonable to us to follow the principle: no jurisdiction, no marriage annulment. And so, since the hierarchy of the SSPX has no jurisdiction to annul marriages, then any marriage annulments granted by the SSPX are null and void.
The answer to this is NEVER. We ask anyone who reads this, including anyone from the SSPX, to show us where and when any group of priests has taken upon themselves the jurisdiction, which normally belongs to the Pope, to grant marriage annulments. No one can find such a group, because it has never happened.
There are three reasons why it has never happened before in the history of the Church:
Not everyone is happy about the current US marriage tribunal situation. It is certain that there are a good number of priests, and maybe even a retired bishop or two, who are appalled at the assembly-line style of annulments given out by US tribunals. Robert Vasoli tells us ("What God has Joined Together," p. 160) that in the Lazio tribunal in Italy, (which provides annulments for the city of Rome and much of central Italy), there are 25 judges who decided 147 annulment cases in 1985. In that same time, 18 judges in Chicago decided 1,360 cases. Vasoli also claims ("What God has Joined Together," p. 198) that in at least one US marriage tribunal, appeal cases were handled at a rate of 13 (thirteen) cases per hour!
If the SSPX can justify setting up their own marriage tribunal, without Rome's permission, just because they think they can do a better job than the US bishops, then what is to stop others from setting up their own tribunals? History has shown that once you open the floodgates of "private interpretation" there is nothing to stop others from doing the same thing. Eventually you'll have as many "private" marriage tribunals as there are "independent" priests and bishops. And you'll end up with chaos, as one "private" marriage tribunal overturns judgements of nullity granted by another "private" marriage tribunal. (Or does the SSPX think that somehow they are the only ones in the world who can disobey Church Law and set up their own "private" marriage tribunal?)
We see that according to the law of the Church, not just anyone can set up their own marriage tribunal:
Can. 1443 The ordinary tribunal constituted by the Roman Pontiff to receive appeals is the Roman Rota.Can. 1673 The following tribunals are competent in cases concerning the nullity of marriage which are not reserved to the Apostolic See:
1º the tribunal of the place where the marriage was celebrated;
2º the tribunal of the place where the respondent has a domicile or quasi-domicile
3º the tribunal of the place where the plaintiff has a domicile, provided that both parties live within the territory of the same Episcopal Conference, and that the judicial Vicar of the domicile of the respondent, after consultation with the respondent, gives consent;
4º the tribunal of the place in which in fact most of the evidence is to be collected, provided that consent is given by the judicial Vicar of the domicile of the respondent, who must first ask the respondent whether he or she has any objection to raise.Can. 1698 §1 Only the Apostolic See gives judgement on the fact of the non-consummation of a marriage and on the existence of a just reason for granting the dispensation.
§2 The dispensation, however, is given by the Roman Pontiff alone.
As we see from the above canons, a marriage tribunal may be set up only by a diocesan bishop or by the Pope.
We find this echoed in the infallible Council of Trent: "Matrimonial and criminal causes... shall be reserved to the examination and jurisdiction of the bishop only." (Sess. XXIV, chap. 20. Bishop here means diocesan bishop).
The Sacraments are Necessary
Finally, we must ask the question, why is the SSPX granting marriage annulments anyway? As already stated, the SSPX knows that they have no Ordinary jurisdiction over the laypeople. However, in the case of the sacraments SSPX priests can claim a case of necessity for taking the extraordinary actions that require the Church to supply jurisdiction.
The necessity for the Sacraments can be said to exist for three reasons:
Marriage annulments are not necessary
But in the case of marriage annulments, the SSPX cannot claim a case of necessity to require the Church to have to supply jurisdiction.
There are no reasons for the necessity of marriage annulments:
If the people who approach SSPX priests don't trust the annulments granted by US tribunals today, because these tribunals give out annulments too easily, then why doesn't the SSPX refer these people to the Roman Rota? It cannot be claimed that the Roman Rota is liberal, at least when we look at the numbers given by Robert Vasoli (What God Has Joined Together, pp. 62-63, 190-192). The Roman Rota overturns a full 92% of all defective consent annulment cases appealed to it from the USA, which means that the Rota considers that 92% of the annulments given out by the US tribunals are null and void. On the other hand, only four-tenths of one percent of all US annulment cases appealed to other US tribunals are overturned. As Vasoli explains ("What God has Joined Together," p. 193):
"The difference between the 92 percent reversal rate of American defective consent cases that reach the Rota and the four-tenths of one percent reversal rate occurring in American Second Instance tribunals is staggering. It points to a huge gulf between how the Rota and American tribunals reckon defective consent and validity."
Mr. Vasoli also questions the necessity of tribunals going to extraordinary means to grant annulments (p. 207):
"While it is true that divorced Catholics (potential Catholic petitioners) have the right to petition for nullity, tribunals have no corresponding duty to go to extraordinary lengths to provide them with annulments."
In other words, people have the right to ask for an annulment, but they don't have the right to get one.
Anyone can give their Opinion on the Validity of a Marriage
We agree that Catholics who have concerns about the legitimacy of the annulments granted by the US bishops, might want to present their marriage case to some other authority for them to give their opinion. However, the fact that this authority is approached, in secret, for their opinion, does not mean that the Church would supply this same authority with the jurisdiction to declare the marriage null, especially when the married couple in question could EASILY obtain this annulment from the local bishop.
We do not deny that people have the right to question their marriage. This right is conceded by Pope Pius XII (Allocution to the Tribunal of the Holy Roman Rota, Oct. 1, 1940):
"according to natural law there belongs to a married couple the right to question [an invalidly contracted] marriage, provided they have not been guilty of causing the impediment or the nullity."
However, it is true that Catholics seek an annulment only when their marriage is going badly. (Why would they want an annulment if their marriage is going well?) But this is also when non-Catholics would simply get a divorce. This is not merely our opinion: it is the warning given by the Sacred Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments, in its statement to marriage tribunals around the world on Dec. 22, 1929:
"As a result of so much unbridled desire for divorce becoming so strong today, in almost every country a most deadly law is in force, attributing to the state the power as if to break asunder the bonds of marriage for trivialities or at least for non-serious reasons. What is worse, because legal cases have been bought forth intentionally and deceitfully, it has followed that Catholic spouses themselves are easily carried away by the longing to dissolve marriages whenever matrimonial partnership has not brought them happiness and peace, as much as they themselves might have made their commitment, giving in too much to emotions... Experience has taught more than once, with evil result, that spouses, more zealous of their desires than of the truth, have undertaken to plead their cause in a place of quasi-domicile, because they arrange things easily for themselves, taking less account of the place of domicile or the place where the marriage was contracted."
And thus, by granting marriage annulments, rather than strengthening the institution of marriage, the SSPX is actually weakening it. And the fact that the SSPX has tried to keep their annulments a big secret for so long, suggests that they have known all along that what they've been doing is wrong.
For years now, the SSPX has been pointing to the bishops (in the USA and elsewhere) saying that these bishops are too liberal, and the problem is that they grant too many marriage annulments. But we ask: if the problem is that there are too many marriage annulments, how does the SSPX solve this problem by granting even more annulments?
It is obvious how the SSPX leaders are contradicting themselves:
A consideration of the actual number of annulments being granted by the SSPX is also of interest. In his letter of March 3, 1998, Bishop Williamson says that the SSPX has granted "less than a dozen" annulments. He then tells us not to worry, as this number is "a trickle rather than a flood". This is like a group of gangsters telling us not to worry because they're not robbing that many banks. It is false reasoning, because if something is wrong, it doesn't matter if you do it only a few times: it's still wrong. Saying that a few annulments is not that bad is just like saying you're only slightly pregnant.
Some supporters of the SSPX point to the mainstream Church in the USA, which in 1995 (the last year for which we have complete figures) granted 54,013 marriage annulments (according to the 1998 Catholic Almanac, p. 235). In other words, if you look at how BAD they are, you will see that the SSPX is not really that bad after all.
But we must remember that in 1995 there were 60,190,605 Catholics in the USA (according to the 1996 Catholic Almanac, p. 437). And according to the best estimates by Fr. Peter Scott at SSPX US District Headquarters, in 1998 there were about 20,000 faithful attending the SSPX Mass centers in the USA.
So, to get a picture of what is really happening, we have to compare the numbers on a per capita or a relative basis. And we have to compare things to the way they were before Vatican II.
We have been unable to get accurate numbers for annulments before Vatican II. The only statistics for annulments that we have been able to find are from the year 1968. In that year, when there were 47,468,333 Catholics in the USA (according to the 1969 Catholic Almanac, p. 523), only 338 annulments were granted (this figure for annulments comes from Joseph Zwack in his book "Annulment: Your Chance to Remarry Within the Catholic Church," 1983, p. 5).
Bishop Williamson has admitted that the SSPX has granted some dozen marriage annulments. Of course, the SSPX annulments were not all granted in one year. Unfortunately, we don't know how many years the SSPX has been granting annulments. However, we do know that Archbishop Lefebvre declared on June 30, 1988, that the SSPX bishops had no jurisdiction (to grant marriage annulments, among other things). It is also reasonable to assume that since Archbishop Lefebvre did not intend the SSPX to grant marriage annulments, as we've shown here and elsewhere in more detail, the SSPX started granting marriage annulments after his death in 1991. Officially, Bishop Fellay announced on Feb 2, 1997 that the SSPX was going to grant marriage annulments. However, we have evidence from South America that the SSPX was secretly granting marriage annulments at least since January of 1996. Therefore, we will assume here that all the marriage annulments granted by the SSPX have been granted since 1996. And, from January of 1996 to Bishop Williamson's letter in March of 1998 is 2 years, which includes the years 1996 and 1997. And so, 12 marriage annulments in 2 years is an average of 6 annulments/year.
When we compare the numbers, we find that the mainstream Church in the USA is now granting 128 times as many annulments per capita as the Church did in 1968, but the SSPX is not much better, as they are granting 43 times as many annulments per capita as the Church did in 1968.
Is the SSPX really bringing us back to the practice of the Church
the way it was according to Catholic Tradition? The numbers speak for themselves.
|
|
|
per 20,000 Catholics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(128 times as many per capita as was in the Church before Vatican II) |
|
(12 for 2 years, 1996-1997) |
(this number should be zero) |
|
(43 times as many per capita as was in the Church before Vatican II) |
Remember: not as bad is still bad.
Certainly the SSPX has no Ordinary jurisdiction to set up a marriage tribunal. The SSPX admit this themselves. There are only four ways that the SSPX could have the jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments:
i) The Pope supplied them such jurisdiction directly. NO.
ii) The Church supplies them such jurisdiction extraordinarily by them having missionary status. NO.
iii) The Church supplies them such jurisdiction extraordinarily by common error. NO.
iv) The SSPX has taken such jurisdiction upon themselves. YES.
i) The Pope: The Pope has never supplied the SSPX with any jurisdiction, and certainly not with the jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments.
ii) Missionary Status: If the SSPX were to claim missionary status, they could not set up their own marriage tribunal. We refer to Can. 252 §2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which says that all marriage cases in missionary territories have to be referred back to Rome. (All that the 1983 Code says about the subject is found in Can. 360, which says that all parts of the Roman Curia are defined by special law). Evidently, missionaries never had their own marriage tribunals.
So then, for the SSPX to have the jurisdiction to set up a marriage tribunal, either the Church would have to supply the jurisdiction due to common error, or the SSPX has taken this jurisdiction upon themselves. In either case, the SSPX is automatically in schism:
iii) Common Error: We have already shown that the Church does not supply jurisdiction to the SSPX because of Common Error.
But, if the Church DID grant the jurisdiction for the SSPX to grant marriage annulments, due to Common Error, it could only be because the people see the SSPX bishops as having the full jurisdiction that is possessed by diocesan bishops, or if the people see Bishop Fellay as having the jurisdiction of the Pope.
But we know that if Bishop Fellay were to act as the Pope, this would be an act of schism. We also know that if any of the four SSPX bishops were given the jurisdiction of diocesan bishops by anyone other than the Pope, this also would be an act of schism.
Therefore, if the SSPX bishops have the jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments due to Common Error, they are in schism.
iv) Taking jurisdiction on themselves: It should be clear that if the bishops of the SSPX take upon themselves any jurisdiction that normally belongs to the Pope, this is an act of schism. This is because the Pope's jurisdiction represents his power to govern over the Church, and to grant to diocesan bishops the jurisdiction he wants them to have, and at the heart of any schism is a denial of the Pope's right to be absolutely supreme in his power to govern the universal Church.
In his conference of August 24, 1998 in Econe, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais declared the schism with Rome:
"It is true that our sentences... replace the sentences of the Roman Rota."
The result is clear: With its marriage tribunal, the SSPX deliberately
intends to replace the decisions made by Rome. This is a deliberate act
of setting up a parallel governing authority in opposition to the governing
authority of Rome. This is an act of schism.
Therefore, it is our conclusion that:
And we have already seen that indirect schism takes place automatically if one performs a schismatic act, even if one does not intend to become a schismatic. Therefore:
It is not necessary for the Pope to declare someone to be in schism, in the case of someone who performs an act of schism. This was demonstrated in the case of the schism of the bishops of Armenia (1871-1879). On Jan. 6, 1873, two years after this schism began, Pope Pius IX declared:
"no one, under any pretext, can believe that they [schismatics] are innocent of the sin of schism, even if they had not been denounced as schismatic by Apostolic authority." (Quartus Supra, Jan. 6, 1873).
Thus, by setting up their own tribunal to judge marriage cases, and by granting marriage annulments, the SSPX is in schism.
Here we shall consider the Case of Bishop Fellay imposing a worldwide Interdict, and Fr. Jacques Emily imposing an Excommunication, on Mr. Michael Dupuis, Mrs. Veronica Eden and Mr. John Thomson. These censures followed upon letters written by the three "accused" to the SSPX hierarchy, and resulted in Mr. Michael Dupuis being dragged out of an SSPX church by the police.
[Note: this case took place in Canada. However, it should be of interest to anyone who deals with the SSPX in other places, as the issues are always the same: criticize the SSPX leaders, and you will be denounced from the pulpit and expelled from the church unless you "retract".]
Summary of our discussion of SSPX Censures on Laypeople:
In March 1996 a lottery was organized by the SSPX priests in Toronto (Fr. Jacques Emily, the Canadian District Superior and Fr. François Castel) and by a select group of laypeople. The purpose of this lottery was to raise money for the St. Joseph Bursary Fund, which was set up to help send children to SSPX schools. Several people at the SSPX church in Toronto (Church of the Transfiguration) opposed this lottery (which became known as "the Cancun Lottery").
The lottery was opposed because of the immorality of the first prize destination, which was a trip for two to Cancun Mexico, a topless beach resort. The hypocrisy of the SSPX is obvious in the case of Cancun:
Everyone makes mistakes, but the incredible thing about this lottery is that the priests, Frs. Castel and Emily, opposed all efforts made by the laypeople to cancel the lottery, and more than this, they made every effort to silence all opposition to the lottery. As the opposition to the lottery continued, more facts emerged: Fr. Castel had lied twice to the government lottery officer, (do holy priests lie?) one of the church members who helped organize the lottery admitted that she lied when she signed the government lottery license, (she acted for the SSPX priests who told her to lie) and an enraged government lottery licensing officer told Mr. Dupuis and Mr. Thomson of several more instances where the lottery organizers and SSPX priests broke the law.
After receiving opposition from both Frs. Castel and Emily, a concerned group of laypeople, including Mr. Dupuis, Mrs. Eden, and Mr. Thomson, sent a letter of complaint to Bishop Fellay. The result:
During the months that followed the Cancun lottery, Mr. Dupuis, Mrs. Eden and Mr. Thomson began to realize that they had only uncovered the tip of the iceberg of scandal in the SSPX. Mr. Patrick Hegarty (RIP), who also opposed the lottery, said before his death: "It's rotten right to the top." And so, from March to September 1997, Mr. Dupuis, Mrs. Eden and Mr. Thomson got together to write three letters, dated May 1, May 30 and Sept. 29. They sent these letters to five members of the SSPX hierarchy, namely Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, Alfonso de Galarretta and Fr. Franz Schmidberger. The letters contained a series of complaints against various priests of the SSPX, including the District Superior of Canada, Fr. Jacques Emily.
The third letter (dated Sept. 29, 1997) also contained allegations made by other persons attending Mass at the SSPX chapel in Toronto, and claiming that Bishop Fellay had made negotiations with Rome, and that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais as well as Fr. Emily, had compromised faith and morals for money. in other words, there was one set of rules for people with money, and a stricter set of rules for everyone else.
As a result of the third letter:
Since that time to the present, none of the three "accused" have attended Mass at any SSPX chapel. Would you attend Mass at a church where the priests send people to topless beaches to raise money and where the police are called in to drag those who complain out of the church?
The "official" written description of the charges levied against Messrs. Dupuis & Thomson and Mrs. Eden (we will refer to them as the three accused) is given in the letters written to Messrs. Dupuis and Thomson by Bishops Fellay and Tissier de Mallerais:
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais: "In your letter of September 29, 1997... you make against me the accusation that I might have been silenced by money offered to me."Bishop Fellay: "...to respond to your letter of 29 September last... the accusations that you make in this letter are, for the most part, pure fantasy and of an imagination unbridled in an unhealthy sense. One could give many examples of this falsity, but we will consider only one of them, the one that concerns the supposed negotiations with Rome."
While the charge is not explicitly stated, it is implicitly evident from the above that the charge is accusing the bishops. This is an offense in Canon Law, and is found in Cann. 220 & 1390 (1983 Code) and 2355 (1917 Code).
Anyone who harms the good reputation of another violates Can. 220 (1983 Code):
Can. 220 No one may unlawfully harm the good reputation which a person enjoys, or violate the right of every person to protect his or her privacy.
The whole question of guilt in the above canon revolves around the word "unlawfully." According to St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, (ST II-II.33.4 ad 2) we have the duty to rebuke our prelate (bishop) publicly if he commits a fault. In such a case, making public the faults of the SSPX hierarchy would not be a crime, but a duty. If the rebuke concerned a false accusation, then the rebuke would be unlawful, and one would be guilty of a violation of the above canon. Hence, to determine if the three accused are guilty of violating the above canon, we must determine if what they wrote to the bishops in their letters was false.
Similar to the above canon, is Can 1390 (1983 Code):
Can. 1390 §2 A person who calumniously denounces an offence to an ecclesiastical Superior, or otherwise injures the good name of another, can be punished with a just penalty, not excluding a censure.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, "calumny consists in falsely charging someone with a crime" (S.T. II-II.68.3). Thus, in order for the three accused to be guilty of the offense described in Can. 1390, they would have to falsely accuse the bishops with a crime.
This offense is very similar to Can 2355 (1917 Code):
Canon 2355 A person who inflicts injury upon another, not by bodily attack, but by words or writings or in any other manner, or who damages his good reputation, may not only be forced in accordance with Canons 1618 and 1938 to make due satisfaction and repair the damages done, but may in addition be punished with appropriate penalties and penances. If the offender be a cleric, and the gravity of the offense demands it, he may be punished even with suspension or removal from office and benefice.Can 1618 In a matter which concerns private persons exclusively, a judge can proceed only at the request of a party. In penal cases, however, and in other cases which affect the public good of the Church or the salvation of souls, once the case has been lawfully introduced, the judge can and must proceed ex officio.
Can 1938 §1 In cases of injuries and defamation the criminal trial cannot be instituted against the offender unless denunciation or complaint has first been made by the injured party.
§2 If, however, there is question of grave injury or defamation committed against a cleric or religious, especially one in dignity, or by a cleric or religious against another, criminal action can be instituted also ex officio, without denunciation or complaint.
It would seem that the question of damaging a good reputation spoken of in Can 2355 (1917 Code) is to be understood only if the accusation is false, particularly in the case of a person in a position of authority. This is because if the accusation is true, then we can be guided by the above-mentioned principle of St. Thomas Aquinas, namely, the duty to rebuke one's prelate.
And so, the three accused would be guilty of a violation of Cann. 220 & 1390 (1983 Code) and 2355 (1917 Code) only if what they said of the bishops was false. We have listed evidence to support the truth of the claims made by the three accused elsewhere.
Assuming however that the three accused did falsely accuse the Bishops, they are still not punishable by law. This is because, according to Canon 1323 (1983 Code), those who act in a case of necessity are not liable to penalties:
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.
We see that there are three conditions necessary for a penalty to be nullified by a case of necessity:
We have elsewhere listed evidence to show that the three accused thought that they acted in a case of necessity, that the action taken by the three accused was not intrinsically evil, and that the action taken by the three accused was not harmful to souls.
It is obvious that if the SSPX hierarchy can defend themselves from an excommunication by Rome on the occasion of the Consecration of Bishops in June 1988, claiming that Archbishop Lefebvre only needed to THINK that he was acting in a case of necessity, then the three accused can certainly defend themselves from any penalty, because they also THOUGHT that they were acting in a case of necessity for the good of the SSPX chapel in Toronto and of the SSPX in general. And this would be true even if the three accused did commit an offense by falsely accusing the bishops.
The SSPX knows they don't have Ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful, but they rely on the Church to supply jurisdiction due to common error.
However, the SSPX can't rely on common error for the jurisdiction to impose censures on laypeople. This is because common error is very specific. We have a more detailed discussion of this question elsewhere.
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. And so the Church will supply the SSPX priests and bishops with the jurisdiction to act like priests and bishops of a religious congregation working in parishes. And no more.
And so, by common error, the Church will supply SSPX priests and bishops the jurisdiction to confer the sacraments and sacramentals, but not to impose censures on laypeople, since members of a religious congregation working in parishes don't do this.
Furthermore, according to the law, religious superiors have jurisdiction to impose censures on the members of their own religious congregation only, never on the laypeople. This principle is summarized by Archbishop Lefebvre's own Canon Law expert, Fr. Felice Cappello, SJ (De Censuris, 1919, #8):
"A bishop may impose censures on those living in his diocese, and a regular prelate [religious superior] on the members of his order subject to him."
Hence, when it is a question of religious superiors having the jurisdiction to impose censures on laypeople, common error is not possible. (This principle has evidently been forgotten by those who have succeeded Archbishop Lefebvre in the leadership of the Society of St. Pius X.)
Hence, SSPX superiors have no jurisdiction to impose censures on laypeople. And, according to Fr. Dominicus Prümmer, OP, (Manuale Theologiae Moralis, Vol. III, 1953, # 486):
"A censure inflicted by a man is null by reason of a defect in the jurisdiction in imposing the censure."
Hence: no jurisdiction, no censure.
And, just as any censures SSPX superiors might impose on the three accused are null and void, so also any censures imposed on any layperson by any SSPX priest are also null and void.
There are only four ways that the SSPX could have the jurisdiction to impose censures on laypeople:
i) The Pope supplied them such jurisdiction directly. NO.
ii) The Church supplies them such jurisdiction extraordinarily by them having missionary status. NO.
iii) The Church supplies them such jurisdiction extraordinarily by common error. NO.
iv) The SSPX has taken such jurisdiction upon themselves. YES.
i) The Pope: The Pope has never supplied the SSPX with any jurisdiction, and certainly not with the jurisdiction to impose censures on laypeople.
ii) Missionary Status: If the SSPX did have missionary status in the territories in which they served, they could impose censures on the laypeople. This is because a priest or bishop needs jurisdiction to impose a censure on laypeople, and the priest (or bishop) who is in charge of a mission territory, by virtue of his office, has full jurisdiction over the laypeople in that mission territory, just as if he were a bishop over a diocese. This is outlined in Canons 197 and 293 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and also Canons 131, 371 and 1319 of the 1983 Code.
However, only the Pope can create a mission territory, as we read in Can 215 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and in Can. 373 of the 1983 Code. Therefore, if the SSPX priests and bishops DO claim to have jurisdiction because they are in charge of mission territories, they have usurped the authority of the Pope in creating these mission territories, and this would be an act of schism.
Therefore, if the SSPX bishops (or priests) claim to have the jurisdiction to impose censures on laypeople because they have missionary status, they are in schism. However, in reality such missionary status does not officially exist, as it can only come from the Pope.
iii) Common Error: We have already shown that the Church does not supply jurisdiction to the SSPX to impose censures on laypeople.
But, if the Church DID grant the jurisdiction for the SSPX to impose censures on laypeople, due to common error, it can only be if the people see the SSPX bishops as having the full jurisdiction that is possessed by diocesan bishops, or if the people see Bishop Fellay as having the jurisdiction of the Pope. But we know that if Bishop Fellay were to act as the Pope, this would be an act of schism, and Archbishop Lefebvre said that if any of the four bishops he consecrated were given the jurisdiction of diocesan bishops by anyone other than the Pope, this also would be an act of schism. Therefore, if the SSPX bishops (or priests) have the jurisdiction to impose censures on laypeople due to common error, they are in schism.
Taking jurisdiction on themselves: It should be clear that if the bishops of the SSPX take upon themselves any jurisdiction that normally belongs to the Pope, or to a diocesan bishop, this is an act of schism. This is because the Pope's jurisdiction represents his power to govern over the Church, and to grant to diocesan bishops the jurisdiction he wants them to have, and at the heart of any schism is a denial of the Pope's right to be absolutely supreme in his power to govern the universal Church.
It should be evident from all that we have said above that the SSPX bishops do not possess the jurisdiction to impose censures on laypeople due to their office, because they are not diocesan bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction. It should also be evident that the SSPX has not been given such jurisdiction by the Pope.
Therefore, it is our conclusion that either:
And we have already seen that indirect schism takes place automatically
if one performs a schismatic act, even if one does not intend to become
a schismatic.
Finally, it is not necessary for the Pope to declare someone to be in schism, in the case of someone who performs an act of schism. This was demonstrated in the case of the schism of the bishops of Armenia (1871-1879). On Jan. 6, 1873, two years after this schism began, Pope Pius IX declared:
"no one, under any pretext, can believe that they [schismatics] are innocent of the sin of schism, even if they had not been denounced as schismatic by Apostolic authority." (Quartus Supra, Jan. 6, 1873).
Thus, by imposing censures on laypeople, the SSPX is in schism.
Can. 1172 § 1 No one may lawfully exorcise the possessed without the special and express permission of the local Ordinary.
§2 This permission is to be granted by the local Ordinary only to a priest who is endowed with piety, knowledge, prudence and integrity of life. (1983 Code)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. (1983 Code)
As religious superiors, Bishop Fellay and Fr. Emily are both Ordinaries. However, as we've seen above, they have no jurisdiction over any laypeople. Furthermore, only the diocesan bishop is a local Ordinary, and never religious superiors like Bishop Fellay and Fr. Emily; hence only a diocesan bishop can grant permission to perform an exorcism. Yet Fr. Emily performed one in early 1993, and Fr. Peter Scott performed one in early 1990. Fr. Castel offered to perform an exorcism on Mrs. Hunter in April 1996, but did not when her husband refused.
The Church would not supply jurisdiction for SSPX priests to perform exorcisms, for the same two reasons that the Church would not supply jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments. The first reason is the private nature of the exorcisms. If the knowledge of the performing of an exorcism is private knowledge, then the SSPX cannot claim common error. Hence, just as the Church would not supply jurisdiction in the case of marriage annulments that were done privately, so also the Church would not supply jurisdiction to perform private exorcisms.
The second reason is that the people see SSPX priests acting as parish priests, and parish priests don't normally have the jurisdiction to perform exorcisms. (Only a priest specially sent by the diocesan bishop can perform an exorcism). Hence, the people would not make the error that SSPX priests would have the jurisdiction to perform exorcisms.
It seems reasonable to us to follow the principle: no jurisdiction, no exorcism. Hence, since no SSPX superiors have been given any jurisdiction to perform exorcisms from any diocesan bishop, then any exorcisms any SSPX priests perform on any of the Faithful who attend their Mass Centres are null and void. Furthermore, by performing exorcisms without the authority of the Church, SSPX priests place themselves in grave danger. We can cite the example of the seven sons of Sceva in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 19:13-16), who performed an exorcism without receiving the authority to do so from any of the Apostles:
13. Now some also of the Jewish exorcists who went about, attempted to invoke over them that had evil spirits, the name of the Lord Jesus, saying: I conjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preacheth.
14. And there were certain men, seven sons of Sceva, a Jew, a chief priest, that did this.
15. But the wicked spirit, answering, said to them: Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?
16. And the man in whom the wicked spirit was, leaping upon them, and mastering them both, prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
In this particular incident, two of the seven renowned Jewish exorcists tried to perform an exorcism without the approval of the Church authorities, and they suffered the consequences.
Finally, just as the assuming of jurisdiction to grant marriage annulments and to impose censures on laypeople are acts of schism, so also is the assuming of jurisdiction to perform an exorcism.
Thus, by performing exorcisms on laypeople, the SSPX is in schism.
The priests of the SSPX follow the liturgical books of 1962, yet they make arbitrary changes to them. But we see in the 1983 Code of Canon Law:
Can. 846 §1 The liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments. Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books.
We also find making arbitrary changes to the liturgy condemned by the infallible Council of Trent:
"If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church... may be changed by any pastor of the Churches to any new ones: let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Session VII, March 3, 1547, Canon 13 on the Sacraments).
Archbishop Lefebvre committed the priests of his SSPX to follow the liturgical books of 1962. In practice, he cited the principle of custom, whereby some ceremonies of ancient and venerable tradition can be added to an existing liturgy. There are many who would dispute the application of this principle to the Liturgy. For the sake of argument we will concede it. This being conceded, no-one, not even Archbishop Lefebvre, allowed for something to be taken out of the liturgy. On the contrary, one of the arguments against the New Mass is simply that in creating it, the Roman Commission took out parts of the Tridentine Mass. The New Mass is basically what we have left. And this is also what has happened in the way that the SSPX celebrates the Tridentine Mass.
In the Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae of the 1962 Missale Romanum,
(the Rite to be Observed in the Celebration of Mass of the 1962 Roman Missal),
promulgated by Pope John XXIII and which is enjoined on every SSPX priest
to follow, we read:
| I - De praeparatione sacerdotis celebraturi (#3) "Postremo sacerdos accipit planetam et, convenientur, caput tegit." | I - The Preparation of the Celebrant (#3) "Last of all, the celebrant puts on the chasuble and, suitably, covers his head." |
| XII - De benedictione in fine Missae, et Evangelio sancti Ioannis (#6)
"Quibus omnibus absolutis, sacerdos accipit sinistra calicem, dexteram
ponens super bursam, ne aliquid cadat, descendit ante infimum gradum altaris,
et, ibi in medio vertens se ad illud, se profunde inclinat (vel, si in
eo est tabernaculum sanctissimi Sacramenti, genuflectit); et, facta reverentia,
accipit biretum a ministro, caput cooperit, ac praecedente eodem ministro,
eo modo quo venerat, redii ad sacristiam..."
|
XII - From the Blessing to the End of Mass, including the Gospel of St. John (#6) "When all has been completed, the priest takes the chalice in his left hand, placing his right hand upon the burse lest anything fall, and goes down in front of the lowest step of the altar. There, turning to the altar in the center, he bows profoundly (or he genuflects, if there is a tabernacle with the Blessed Sacrament on the altar); after the reverence, he takes the biretta from the minister, covers his head, and with the minister preceding him, he returns to the sacristy in the same manner in which he came out..." |
Thus we see that in the 1962 Missal, the use of the biretta is specified. The biretta was still required in the 1968 Missal, which was promulgated by Pope Paul VI and which included several changes made to the Tridentine Mass. It was not until the Missal of 1970, which brought the introduction of the New Mass, that the use of the biretta was removed. In the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) there is a section describing all the vestments worn by the priest, but there is no mention of the biretta.
Thus we see that in the 1970 Missal, the biretta is no longer specified. It is evident then, that with regard to the biretta, rather than follow the prescriptions of the 1962 Missal (of the Tridentine Mass) where the biretta is required, SSPX follows those of the 1970 Missal (of the New Mass) where the biretta has been removed.
We have to ask how SSPX priests can criticize the liturgical adaptation
that prevails in the celebration of the New Mass, where each priest celebrates
Mass according to his whim and fancy, but the SSPX themselves perform such
adaptations when they celebrate the Tridentine Mass?
Is changing the liturgy an act of schism?
It is evident that the SSPX has arbitrarily changed the liturgy. We've seen that this is contrary to Can. 846 §1 (1983 Code). But according to the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, (1939, col. 1303), this also places the SSPX in schism:
"pure schism... is indirect if the will has as its object, not the refusal of communion, but a thing which, thus desired, sought out or pursued under these conditions, involves a rupture of communion: this would be the case, for example, of a local church who would want to change the rites of the sacraments without consulting the universal Church and its head."
This comment is in agreement with the above mentioned condemnation by the Council of Trent. Thus, by arbitrarily changing the liturgy, the SSPX is in schism.
One of the new laws added to the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that members of a religious institute must follow their own laws:
Can. 587 §1 To protect more faithfully the vocation and identity of each institute, the fundamental code or constitutions of the institute are to contain, in addition to those elements which are to be preserved in accordance with Can. 578, basic norms about the governance of the institute, the discipline of the members, the admission and formation of members, and the proper object of their sacred bonds.Can. 578 The whole patrimony of an institute must be faithfully preserved by all. This patrimony is comprised of the intentions of the founders, of all that the competent ecclesiastical authority has approved concerning the nature, purpose, spirit and character of the institute, and of its sound traditions.
As we shall demonstrate below, at least some priests of the SSPX are not faithful to the Ordonnances, which is a set of regulations given by Archbishop Lefebvre on May 1, 1980, and which all priests of the SSPX are required to follow. Before we cite examples, we have to point out that on the one hand, SSPX priests criticize priests in other religious orders (in what the SSPX calls the Official Church) because these priests do not follow their rules, yet on the other hand, the priests of the SSPX do not follow their own rule!
We think that many laypeople might be surprised to see the actual rules that SSPX priests are supposed to follow. It is most likely that this is the first time that many people will be made aware of these rules:
Meals Outside of the Community
-They must be rare, one or two times per month at the maximum, preferably at noon rather than in the evening, avoiding to be always with the same families.Evening Outings for the Ministry
-They must not take place more than two times per week and finish at the latest by 11:00 PM.Places of Leisure - Movie Theaters - Television
-The members of the Society will avoid all the places of leisure which are not suitable for clerics or for persons consecrated to God.
-They do not go to movies and they don't have a television.
-If they must take a rest, they will choose preferably the houses of the Society.
-They avoid all expensive and worldly sports.
-They will strive in everything to put into practice the spirit of renunciation and poverty.
What follows are actual examples of SSPX priests not following their rules. These examples are drawn from our own personal experience in Canada. Based on what people from elsewhere have been telling us, SSPX priests in other places show a similar disregard for their rule. Eventually, we hope to add actual case histories from other places based on the experiences of those who read this information.
Despite all the rules they have broken, there is one rule of the Ordonnances that Frs. Emily and Castel have always obeyed:
The Length of Vacations
-One month per year, which can be divided, for the Fathers and Brothers who are members and who are in the ministry. As for the professors, they have their vacations in harmony with the schedule of the school year, however they will not take more than a month during the long summer vacation and they will exercise an apostolate during the free weeks.
Among the new laws added to the 1983 Code of Canon Law is one that states that members of a religious institute must follow the intentions of their founder:
Can. 578 The whole patrimony of an institute must be faithfully preserved by all. This patrimony is comprised of the intentions of the founders, of all that the competent ecclesiastical authority has approved concerning the nature, purpose, spirit and character of the institute, and of its sound traditions.
It is quite evident that the priests of the SSPX are not faithful to the intentions of their founder.
We know Archbishop Lefebvre's intentions from what he never did himself
Archbishop Lefebvre never:
These things Archbishop Lefebvre never did, and it is inconceivable that he would have wanted the members of his Priestly Fraternity to do them either.
We know Archbishop Lefebvre's intentions from what he wrote
Archbishop Lefebvre intended for the SSPX bishops to confer the sacraments only, not to grant marriage annulments, or inflict censures on laypeople. Archbishop Lefebvre stated his intended purpose for the SSPX bishops in several letters which he wrote before he consecrated the four bishops:
"If one day it would be necessary to consecrate bishops, these would have the sole episcopal power of exercising their sacerdotal prerogatives and they would have no powers of jurisdiction, having no canonical mandate." (Archbishop Lefebvre, letter of April 27, 1987, quoted in 'Neither Schismatics nor Excommunicates', an article in the journal Si Si No No, Sept. 1988, emphasis ours)"The chief purpose of this transmission is to impart the grace of priestly order for the continuation of the true Sacrifice of the Mass, and for conferring the grace of the sacrament of confirmation to those children and faithful who request it from you." (Archbishop Lefebvre, letter to the four bishops-elect, Aug. 29, 1987)
"Your function will be to give the sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation and to keep the Faith on the occasion of Confirmations, to protect the flock." (Archbishop Lefebvre, letter to the four bishops-elect, June 12, 1988)
"Your function will be to give the sacraments, and to preach the Faith." (Archbishop Lefebvre, letter to the four bishops-elect, June 13, 1988)
Archbishop Lefebvre also stated his intended purpose of the SSPX bishops in his sermon on the day of the Consecrations, June 30, 1988:
"we have chosen, with the grace of God, young priests, priests of our Society who seemed to us the most qualified and at the same time who were in circumstances, in places and in functions, which would permit them to fulfill more easily their episcopal ministry, to give Confirmation to your children and to be able to perform Ordinations in our various seminaries."
This purpose is also stated in the Statues of the SSPX:
"The Fraternity's purpose is the Priesthood and whatever pertains to it and nothing but what concerns it" (Statutes II.1) "A second purpose of the Fraternity is to assist the sanctification of priests by providing them with opportunities for retreats and recollections." (Statutes, III.2).
Archbishop Lefebvre was very careful to repeat the purpose of the SSPX bishops so many times. The fact that these same bishops have gone beyond the purpose laid out for them by Archbishop Lefebvre, in granting marriage annulments and imposing censures on the laypeople, is proof that they no longer follow the intentions of the man who consecrated them.
We know Archbishop Lefebvre's intentions for the Superior General
Archbishop Lefebvre also intended that the superior General not be a bishop. We know this for two reasons. The first is that in choosing the four candidates for becoming his new bishops, Archbishop Lefebvre deliberately avoided choosing Fr. Schmidberger, then the Superior General, to be one of the bishops. The second reason that we know the intentions of Archbishop Lefebvre, is that they were expressed in the Statutes of the Society of St. Pius X which he composed in 1970:
"The Superior General and his two assistants... must have bound themselves permanently to the Fraternity and must be priests and at least thirty years of age." (Statutes, sect. V.1)
Archbishop Lefebvre also intended that the SSPX be faithful to the teachings of their patron, St. Pius X
This is evident, as Archbishop Lefebvre chose St. Pius X to be the patron of the religious institute that he was founding.
Yet we have at least one case where, in a flyer promoted by Fr. Emily from the pulpit on the Feast of Corpus Christi, June 9, 1996, and then placed in the vestibule of the Church of the Transfiguration in Toronto, the teaching of Pope St. Pius X on frequent communion seems to be contradicted. We quote:
"IMPORTANCE OF FREQUENT CONFESSIONI. Introduction: Because, we now all profit by the privilege of frequent communion, since the pontifical decree of Saint Pius X on the 20th of December 1905, it is very important to insist on a very important spiritual benefit, which is so worthy for everybody: frequent confession.
Before this decree of Saint Pius X, the faithful never received Holy Communion without having confessed their sins before. Today, it is quite common that people, who are used to frequently receiving Holy Communion, are waiting for a long time without going to confession, under the pretext that it is enough to be in the state of grace to receive communion:"
We see below what Pope Pius X actually had to say about this question, in his Decree encouraging frequent communion of Dec. 20, 1905 (taken from Denzinger # 1982-1990):
D 1987 Although it is especially expedient that those who practice frequent and daily communion be free from venial sins, at least those completely deliberate, and of their effect, it is enough, nevertheless, that they be free from mortal sins, with the resolution that they will never sin in the future.
There is no mention in the words of St. Pius X of any necessity for frequent confession. Being in the state of grace is enough. In the same Decree encouraging frequent communion, Pope St. Pius X also had this to say:
D 1982 Because of the plague of Jansenism, which raged on all sides, disputes began to arise regarding the dispositions with which frequent and daily communion should be approached, and some more than others demanded greater and more difficult dispositions as necessary."
From all that you have already read above, it should be obvious by now that: