SSPX Faced with the profusion of statements, articles and interviews which present the Society of Saint Pius X as responsible for a fracture within the Church, for a very serious disobedience towards the Holy Father, or even for a real schism, it seems appropriate to write a few lines in order to provide some clarification.
Our method will always be the same, not impressions, nor "hearsay," nor the lucubrations of the occasional commentator, but Catholic theology, drawn from its sources: the constant Magisterium of the Church and the teaching of the great theologians and canonists.
1. The Society of Saint Pius X Is Not SchismaticCardinal Tommaso de Vio (known as Cajetan, 1469-1534), one of the greatest theologians of all time, explicitly stated: “Disobeying, even obstinately, the Sovereign Pontiff does not constitute a schism. What constitutes a schism is refusing to submit to him as head of the whole Church.”
What is the difference between simple disobedience, which does not lead to schism, and disobedience accompanied by rebellion, which implies a refusal to submit and constitutes a schism?
Cardinal Cajetan explains it clearly. I can disobey an order from the Pope for three reasons:
- because what he orders me to do not please me or seems unfair to me;
- because I believe he is acting unfairly towards me;
- because I do not recognize him as my superior.
In the first two cases, there is no schism; in the third, there is a schism.
The difference is clear. If I do not recognize the Pope as my superior, I will not be willing to obey him under any circuмstances, whatever order he gives me. If, on the other hand, I recognize him as my superior, I may certainly disobey him on a particular point, but I remain ready to obey him; therefore, I am not a schismatic.
Otherwise, anyone who disobeyed a papal precept, for example by refusing to fast on the prescribed days or to attend Sunday mass, would be a schismatic. Which is absurd.
“It often happens, in fact, that a man refuses to carry out the orders of his superior while continuing to recognize him as his superior.”
This doctrine of Cardinal Cajetan was adopted by all subsequent canonists and theologians, without exception.
However, if we consider the Society's consistent stance and the statements of its superiors, it becomes clear that it disobeys the Pope not because it refuses to recognize him as its superior or to submit to him, but because it believes it cannot accept certain orders he gives. We therefore find ourselves in the first case described by Cardinal Cajetan.
Indeed, the Society names the Pope in the Canon of the Mass (thus demonstrating its recognition of him as its superior) and obeys the Holy See in all matters where there is neither certainty nor probability of modernism (for example, regarding laicization, requests for dispensations or graces reserved to the Holy Father, the proclamation of jubilees, etc.). It is also ready to obey the Pope in all things, provided that his orders do not imply adherence to the modernist doctrines of Vatican II and the post-conciliar period.
The Society is therefore in no way schismatic.
But is she at least disobedient? For one can be seriously disobedient without being schismatic. We will answer this question in the third point.
[...]
ConclusionThe Fraternity is neither schismatic nor disobedient. The excommunications pronounced against it are without effect, because where there is no crime, there can be no punishment. The wound certainly exists, but we did not inflict it.
We are confident, indeed certain, by virtue of the promises made by Our Lord Jesus Christ to his Church, that one day the Church authorities will return to authentic Catholic doctrine and recognize our complete innocence.
Topic: Neither Schismatic Nor Disobedient (Read 178 times)