Darts on a Map

Will We Be Excommunicated?

My dear brothers,

We are approaching this great event of July 1st, which is of such importance for what Archbishop Lefebvre called “operation survival” of Tradition.

Nine days separate us, and you’ll see: voices will begin to rise. Journalists, especially at this time of year, often have little to say. So we’ll be called schismatics, heretics; perhaps we’ll be excommunicated, I don’t know, I’m not a prophet. But I’ll simply tell you: remain at peace.

What excommunication really is

First, it’s important to remember what excommunication is. Excommunication, and this is crucial to understand, doesn’t remove someone from the Church; it’s a punishment. The Church has the authority—and we respect these Church rules—to punish with various penalties a person who commits a serious outward offense that affects the common good.

A priest who commits a serious offense, for example, may be temporarily barred from celebrating Mass; this is called suspension. Other penalties exist, but excommunication is the most severe. These are sanctions imposed by the Church, which is normal; like any other institution, the Church has the power to punish.

So, what exactly does this punishment of excommunication consist of?

The person afflicted by this penalty, the excommunicated person, can no longer receive the sacraments; they can no longer be given communion, hence the word. Absolution cannot be granted until they have recanted, until they have renounced the cause of this penalty. The Church, officially, no longer prays for them; the Church excludes them from its official prayers. That is what excommunication is. It is very serious, certainly; it is a very severe penalty, but, as I was saying, it does not place someone outside the Church.

Let me give you an example: a priest who violates the seal of confession. Here’s the thing: he reveals what Mr. or Mrs. So-and-so confided in him during confession. This is a sin called violating the seal of confession. This priest is excommunicated, which is very serious, but he remains Catholic, he remains a member of the Church. He must repent; the excommunication will only be lifted once he has expressed remorse for his sin, and it’s not even certain that the Church will then restore his ability to hear confessions.

Let me give you another example. You know that the sin of abortion carries excommunication. The person who causes an abortion is excommunicated, meaning they no longer have the right to receive communion, and to confess and obtain absolution, they must repent of their sin. And yet, this person remains Catholic, a member of the Church.

Therefore, understand clearly that excommunication does not exclude one from the Church.

I’m telling you this because someone said to me not long ago: “I’ve returned to the Catholic Church. I was Protestant. And I don’t want to be excluded from the Catholic Church.” But whatever happens, even in the most serious cases, you are not excluded from the Church for that; you may hear this argument.

And know that, in addition, in the case of episcopal consecrations, Church law specifies very clearly — it is written in black and white in Church law — that one who acts driven by a state of necessity does not fall under the penalty of excommunication.

This Is What Truly Constitutes a Schism

But then, what about the schism? We’ll be called schismatics. What exactly is a schism, dear brothers?

A schism is not an act of disobedience. Look: the bishop asks for something, and I don’t do it. That’s an act of disobedience, since what he’s asking of me is legitimate, but it’s not a schism. Schism consists of rejecting the authority of those who occupy the sees of the successors of the Apostles: the Pope and the bishops. To reject their authority is to no longer recognize them as legitimate pastors, which is absolutely not the case for us.

You have an example of schism: the Orthodox schism. Since the 11th century, the Eastern Church has broken communion with Rome, meaning that the Orthodox Church does not recognize the Pope or Catholic bishops as the legitimate pastors of the Church, and has therefore established another hierarchy.

This is not at all our situation; for us, the Pope is indeed the Pope. The bishops currently in office are legitimate bishops, established to guide us according to the Tradition of the Church, according to its spirit, and to transmit to us the deposit of faith. But there are things to which we are not obliged to obey, and this does not mean that we question their authority. That is why we cannot be accused of schism.

And the proof, dear brothers, is that in 2000 and then in 2005, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, who was responsible for the Ecclesia Dei commission, that is to say the body in charge of questions related to traditionalists, clearly explained that there was no schism, and this after the consecrations of 1988. Why? Because Archbishop Lefebvre had not wanted to found a parallel Church with a parallel hierarchy and parallel bishops.

That is why Archbishop Lefebvre insisted so much on the fact that the bishops he had consecrated were intended simply to confer the sacraments that only a bishop can give, confirmation and the priesthood, but not to govern, not to create dioceses in place of other dioceses.

Moreover, this position, defended by Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, greatly influenced that of Pope Benedict XVI. In 2009, Benedict XVI reiterated that the Society of Saint Pius X was under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that is, a congregation that deals with internal matters within the Catholic Church, and not the Pontifical Council for Ecumenism, which deals with non-Catholic religions or separated communities. If we were schismatic, as some claim, we would not be under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Even today, the problem of consecrations is dealt with by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, who is responsible for this issue, and therein lies the paradox. When we preach an open, charitable, and merciful Church, the specter of excommunication is trotted out again, because I believe that today, throughout the Catholic Church, it is only among traditionalists that this still frightens some; for others, it is completely indifferent.

Cardinal Fernández, before being appointed to Rome by Pope Francis, was Archbishop of La Plata, Argentina, and was known for his pronouncements and writings. In these writings, he explained that today the Church no longer condemns or excludes, and he compared this to the Church of the past, the Church before Vatican II. He said, “What kind of Church was this that allowed itself to judge, to prevent people from receiving communion, to refuse absolution to certain individuals?” For him, this was scandalous. In one text, he even went so far as to compare it to a kind of Gestapo.

And this is the same man who, today, is raising the specter of excommunication and threatening schism. It’s laughable, if it weren’t so serious, it would be laughable. And I won’t even mention the accusations concerning his handling, while he was in Argentina, of extremely serious moral problems in his diocese. That’s a public matter, but I won’t say any more.

Already Excluded in Practice

So, you see, we mustn’t make a mockery of the world; we must remain confident. You see, what we are doing is nothing other than what Archbishop Lefebvre did in 1988, and even, I would say, it is almost wiser. When Archbishop Lefebvre carried out the consecrations of 1988, he appointed four bishops, four bishops who were priests with relatively few years of priesthood, five or six years, and it was not yet known how this paradoxical situation of bishops who, having no jurisdiction of their own, would travel the world to administer confirmation and ordain priests wherever Tradition required it, could be implemented.

Whereas now, those chosen to be consecrated bishops sometimes have twenty years of priestly service, they have held important positions in the Society, sometimes even very important ones, and above all, we now know, after nearly forty years, how this role of bishops has functioned. You have seen it yourselves, you know what it is, and you see that it works very well and that it absolutely does not constitute a parallel Church, a schismatic Church.

So, they want to forbid us the sacraments? They want to forbid us… but it’s already been done! It’s been done for a long time! Pope Francis has forbidden the sacraments from being celebrated according to the traditional rite in many places, for all the sacraments, even though his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, had clearly stated that every priest has the right to celebrate the traditional Mass and that the faithful have the right to receive the sacraments in the traditional rite.

So can one pope contradict another pope? What will the next one say? And what will the one who comes after him say?

Today, in practice, we are already excommunicated. You go somewhere, you want to say Mass, and you are asked:

— “Where are you from?”

— “I am a member of the Society of Saint Pius X.”

— “Oh no! You can’t.”

You are faithful, you wish to receive communion kneeling and on the tongue, as your parents and grandparents did, and the response you receive is:

— “Oh no, no, no! Here, we take communion standing up and holding hands.”

And while communion is refused to certain people, the sacraments are refused according to the traditional rite—all of this already exists. The sacraments are refused in the traditional rite, so in effect, people are already being excluded. Yet, we cannot forbid people from claiming the sacraments in the rite of their ancestors, in those rites that have preserved the faith.

They Could Do Nothing

So, my brothers, let us not worry, the caravan will pass, there will probably be barking, but it will pass.

Remember, dear brothers, that Our Lord himself, when he was in Nazareth, came to preach, and they listened to him. Then the people of his town wanted to throw him down a hill. Why? Because Jesus had rebuked them for not listening to the word of God, so they wanted to throw him down that hill. And the evangelist Saint Luke simply tells us that Jesus passed through their midst and went away; they could do nothing.

And Saint John tells us that one day, while Jesus was in the Temple in Jerusalem, the Pharisees asked him, “Who do you think you are?” And Jesus replied, “Before Abraham was, I am.” That is to say, he declared himself to be God. Then they were filled with fury, they picked up stones, they wanted to stone him, and Saint John tells us that Jesus left the Temple and went away; they could do nothing.

When God is with us, who can be against us?

And don’t forget that beautiful Gospel story of the healing of the man born blind. Jesus healed this man, and then the synagogue leaders questioned him: “Who did this to you? How did it happen?” Then they questioned his parents. Sensing the danger, the parents replied: “We know he was blind from birth, but how he regained his sight, we don’t know.”

And Saint John adds this remark: His parents spoke this way because they were afraid. Why? Because anyone who adhered to Jesus Christ was excluded from the synagogue. Excluded from the synagogue, that is to say, in a way, excommunicated. Those who acknowledged Jesus Christ no longer had the right to attend services in the synagogues; they were excluded. They were already, in a certain way, excommunicated—never forget that.

I will conclude with this, dear brothers. Saint Joan of Arc was judged by the Church, she was burned at the stake, and you know that in her final moments, she asked for a crucifix to be brought to her. She gazed upon this crucifix, invoking the holy name of Jesus to come to her aid and help her in this terrible suffering. And on her head, she wore a mitre. On this mitre were written these words: “Witch, heretic, schismatic, excommunicated.”

And today? Today, the Church venerates Saint Joan of Arc not only as a saint, but also as the patron saint of France.

So, dear brothers, let us keep faith.

(Source: Église Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet – FSSPX Actualités)