Schism - what is it?

It is well to define this word. A schism is not a refusal to obey authority, but a denial that the visible, ostensive authority exists at all. If any archbishop had consecrated another bishop for a diocese that had a validly appointed bishop already incumbent, this would be a denial of the authority of the Church to apportion jurisdiction, and it would be schismatic [although St Athanasius did this during the Arian crisis ... but let that rest for now]. Lefebvre declared that a state of emergency exists, and appointed emergency bishops pro tem, sine locus. This may or may not be justified, but it is not schismatic.

To quote the Catholic Encyclopaedia: "Not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command"

Archpb. Lefebvre said, in effect, “Holy Father, in this matter, you are going to snuff out the last living strand in the tradition of the Church of totally faithful bishops, unaffected by the Modernist error that your predecessor rightly called “The synthesis of all heresies”. In these circumstances, it will be the lesser of two evils for me to fulfil my sworn duty as a bishop and appoint my successors”. He did NOT add, “And therefore you are not my father”.

Since real schismatics are in a state of material mortal sin, the question is important. For a decade I have fully supported the SSPX. The last straw was the letter from an Irish bishop refusing to implement Ecclesia Dei - a Motu Proprio & therefore carrying the Force of Law - & containing the word "must". The Pope had told him he “must” be generous when his flock asked for the Old Mass, and he refused. He knew he was going to get away with it, and he did: because modern Rome teaches, but does not, in the present age, enforce its teachings. Then we wonder why things are gone to pot. Hence, it was clear to me, the SSPX are correct in diagnosing a state of emergency, & taking appropriate emergency measures.

Using boo-words like "schism', especially without defining them, has not worked. The sspx have called their bluff.

See the following link for a very comprehensive treatment of "apostacy by way of obedience"...

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/1996_November/To_Apostasy_by_way_of_Obedience.htm

M. Ó Fearghail