Bishop Lindsay vs the SSPX

From TradWiki

Bishop Lindsay vs SSPX

8th March 2003

At present in England there is a public controversy over the expulsion of a top committee member of the Latin Mass Society for facilitating a Mass centre for the SSPX after requests made to the local bishop under the Ecclesia Dei indult were repeatedly refused. Bishop Lindsay of Cumbria has been prominent in the debate. It goes very much against the grain for a Catholic to disagree openly with his superiors, yet the saints have insisted that this can be a solemn duty in certain situations (cf. Gal2:11). The Church is floundering in a maze of self-inflicted contradictions, not least because of futile attempts to change Church teachings that are unchangeable. The bishops and priests of the SSPX are making a courageous and principled stand, for which they are censured, whilst others find themselves attempting to defend the indefensible out of supposed loyalty. The attempt to convict the SSPX of schism, whilst witholding censure of real schismatics, is a typical example.

Bp. Lindsay (Catholic Times, 2 March 2003) refers to the Holy Father's statement in Ecclesia Dei that the action of Mgr Lefebvre & the others, in consecrating bishops without Papal mandate, is in practice "a schismatic act". How can I say with sufficient respect that this is not the teaching of the Church? The Pope is not protected against error in each and every one of his statements, and examples of this are to be found throughout the history of the papacy.

Now an act of disobedience is not a schism. The Catholic Church has endured two millennia partly because she has kept her thought, and the words that express them, clear and precise.

A schism is a rejection of the principle of Papal authority and the setting up of an independent Church, as the Chinese Patriotic Church (CPA) has done explicitly. One hundred Chinese bishops since 1957 have been consecrated without papal mandate and in stated repudiation of Papal authority, without any statement of schism or excommunication coming from the Vatican. Five CPA bishops were consecrated on 6 January 2000. The Vatican expressed regret but no condemnation - in fact Cdl Echtergay was sent on a goodwill mission, celebrating Mass at a CPA chapel whilst not contacting the underground Church, which remains loyal to the Pope under persecution.

By total contrast, Lefebvre and Archbp. de Castro Mayer, in consecrating their bishops, said to the Pope in effect, "Holy Father, we are driven to this act by a grave emergency. Time will vindicate our judgment". They did not ever say, "You are not our Father". By the New Code of Canon Law, a genuine belief of necessity excuses from the penalty (Canons1321, 1323). Actually, this makes it virtually impossible for the Church, under current legislation, to excommunicate anybody at all.

In quoting the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, Bishop Lindsay has omitted to mention that, in the very same document, the Holy Father states that bishops everywhere "must" give a wide and generous interpretation to the legislation concerning the traditional Rite of Mass, if requested by their flock. 600 parishoners requested the traditional Mass in Middlesborough, but were refused. A Motu Proprio is "a statement of the Pope's initiative that carries the force of law" and this one contains the word “must”, yet Bp Lindsay, among so many others, has steadfastly refused to comply. I respectfully submit that the bishop is expecting obedience to himself whilst at the same time he is being disobedient to the Holy Father. These ridiculous anomalies do nothing to edify the Church.

M. Ó Fearghail