To many ordinary Catholics whom I believe are striving to attain perfection in their spiritual life; those who try their best to attend and assist at Mass (Novus Ordo) faithfully, those who frequent the Sacraments especially that of Penance, those who still recite their daily prayers, those who fast and abstain as the Church prescribes, those who try to be charitable to others, those who seek to avoid mortal sins and etc, the SSPX would seem to be a schismatic movement. Some, even go as far to compare the SSPX to the Protestants. The name SSPX itself will cause people to cringe. It is as if the SSPX were a cancer in the Church, threatening to kill off the Church and the faithful. On the contrary, the SSPX is far from that. I am not here to give an apologetic for the SSPX but my purpose of writing this is that someday, someone who reads this might know that the SSPX is not what the mainstream media portrays. In this country, Malaysian, one would be accustomed to know that the main newspapers are the voices of the government, seeking to always discredit opposing parties. However, before any decision or perception can be made, one must read what are the views and ideologies of the opposing parties in order to make an unbiased judgement. The same principle applies here. The Herald or the infamous NCR have their reports on the SSPX or “Lefebvrists” as they name us but in order to have a better understanding of the issue, one must hear about the SSPX from the SSPX itself to have a complete view of what they stand for and why they exist in the first place.
In this writing, I would like to tackle the famous issue on the SSPX being schismatic. First of all, what is a schismatic? Schismatic comes from the word schism in which a situation in which someone deliberately separates himself from the Bishop of Rome and not acknowledging him as the Head of the Church appointed by Christ and in succession of the Apostle St Peter. Therefore, being a schismatic means being in a position of total objection to the Papacy. A schismatic may seem to have the Faith but they do not fully possess it as they reject the Papacy which is part of the Article of Faith. Even under the New Code of Canon Law promulgated by the late Pope Wojtyla, the definition of schismatic remains the same, in which one rejects the authority of the Pope. Now, when one sees the definition of schism and looking at what are the SSPX’s views on the Papacy, one immediately has to eliminate the notion that the SSPX is schismatic. The SSPX ACCEPTS THE POPE AS THE LEGITIMATE VICAR OF CHRIST. PERIOD. The fact that we recognize and accept Pope Benedict XVI as the current successor of Peter, as well as were his predecessors, makes us non-schismatics. The SSPX cannot be schismatics because of the very definition of schism which means a rejection of the authority of the Pope.
Of course, once we manage to clear out matters with the definition, some smarties come up and bring out another issue, which again, is a non-issue. They pose the question, if the SSPX accepts and recognizes the Pope, why don’t they obey the Pope. After all, he is infallible. Hold that point! Since when has the Pope been infallible in EVERYTHING he says? My advice to these people are to re-read the Catechism. Firstly, the Pope is only infallible in matters of Faith and Morals. Then, in order for it to be infallible, he must use his authority as teacher and quote the doctrine of infallibility and in order to be bound, it must be in coherence with the constant Magisterium of the Church as well as the teachings of the previous Popes all the way back to St Peter. Finally, the Pope must bind the doctrine on all his subjects. Only then does the matter (faith and morals) becomes infallible. Now, the SSPX issue was nothing on faith and morals. It was a disciplinary matter. It was one of obedience. You don’t just call someone a schismatic for being disobedient. However, as defined by Canon Law, ordaining Bishops without Papal mandate incurs excommunication. Yes, that is clear. HOWEVER, one must take into consideration the crisis in the Church. People who are no Canon Law experts or theologians like you and I can also know that there was a problem in the Church. With all the crises going on in the Church, prompted by the Holy Ghost, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated 4 Bishops without Papal mandate in order to safeguard the ever sacred Traditions of the Church. It’s not just nostalgia for Latin. It’s about sound Doctrine which even the Church leaders in Rome were departing from. If Archbishop Lefebvre had not done the Consecrations, Tradition would have been dead now. The SSPX contributed to the preservation of Tradition in many ways. It was because of the SSPX that the Ecclesia Dei was formed in the first place. From there, other congregations sprung forth. However, the difference between the SSPX is that we don’t just exist for the Mass. We exist for Faith. Lex orandi, lex credendi, the law of prayer is the law of faith. Prayer dictates faith. The way we pray shows the way we believe. Just having the Old Mass for the sake of nostalgia is not enough. We need to preserve the Faith that comes and is reflected by it.
So, to those who say that the SSPX is schismatic, I kindly ask and pray of you to stop that argument as even the Pope does not call us schismatics. In fact, the Pope praised Archbishop Lefebvre and called him a true son of the Church. I pray and hope for the best to come from the SSPX-Rome discussions. Until then, God bless.
SSPX Sabah 