Bishop Pagliarini Jan. 15, 2019 - Meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay Feb. 19, 2019 - Meeting between Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Fellay May 6, 2019 - Meeting between Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Fellay July 19, 2019 - Meeting between Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Fellay Nov. 11, 2019 - Meeting between Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Fellay Feb. 12, 2020 - Meeting between Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Fellay July 2, 2020 -

1. The Anatomy of the Priestly
Fraternity of Saint Pius X
(SSPX)
Bro. Ryan R. Mejillano, MAT
National Secretary
Speaker
May 28-29, 2011
Annual National Assembly
Catholic Faith Defenders Inc.
Social Hall-Asilo dela Medalla Milagrosa,
Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City

2. Objectives
 to present a canonical history/ chronology of the
Lefebvrite schism by highlighting the major
events leading up to Lefebvre's illicit episcopal
consecrations in 1988, along with the declaration
of his excommunication.
 to identify the main arguments put forward by the
Lefebvrite movement in defense of Lefebvre's
various actions, and examine these arguments in
light of canonical jurisprudence and tradition.

3. Definition of Terms
 Schism – is the withdrawal of submission to the
Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the
members of the Church subject to him ( Canon
751)
 Excommunication - Canonical penalty whereby a
Catholic is excluded from the Church. It can be
incurred automatically for certain offenses or
imposed by competent authority (Catholic
Encyclopedia)

4. Definition of Terms
 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre – founder of the
SSPX. Superior General of Missionary of Holy
Ghost Fathers, Metropolitan Archbishop of Dakar,
Africa
 Bishop Fellay – Superior General of SSPX
 Traditional Latin Mass – known today as the
Extraordinary Form (EF) of the Roman Rite
together with Ordinary Form (OF) a.k.a. New
Order of Mass/ vernacular mass (Summorum
Pontificum)

5. The Traditionalist movement has NOT been
condemned by the Church – Anatomy of
Schism, page 26

6. Pete Vere, JCD – Canon Lawyer/former
SSPX supporter

7. SSPX new superior & officers
(4th
General Chapter, July 21, 2018)
Superior General – Rev. Fr. Davie Pagliarini
(Italy, 47 years old)
1st
Asst.- Bishop Alfonso de Galaretta (Spain)
2nd
Asst.- Rev. Fr. Christian Buchacourt
(French)
General Counsellors – Bishop Bernard Fellay
General Counsellors – Rev. Fr. Schmiberger
637 priests as of July 2018

9. Canonical History
 1 November 1970- Society of St. Pius X established in
Econe, France.
 6 May 1975- Holy See commands Lefebvre to close
Econe seminary and to disband the Society.
 5 June 1975- Lefebvre appeals against the decision;
Holy See rejects the appeal.
 13 February 1976- Lefebvre states that if granted a
proper trial he would close the seminary.
 29 June 1976- Lefebvre suspended from ordaining
priests.

10. Canonical History
 21 November 1987- Lefebvre writes to Card. Gagnon
in thanksgiving and makes proposals regarding the
society.
 5 January 1988- Card. Gagnon presents his report to
the Pope; his role in the negotiations ends.
 2 February 1988- Lefebvre states his intentions to
proceed with the 30 June consecrations.
 18 March 1988- Card. Ratzinger writes to Lefebvre,
suggesting that the Holy See and the Society each
designate a canonist and a theologian to work out an
agreement the presidency of a Pope-designated
moderator

11. Canonical History
 8 April 1988- The Pope writes to Card. Ratzinger, expressing
his desire that everything possible be done to reach a resolution
that will enable the Society to have a regular position in the
Church.
 12-15 April 1988- canonist and theologians from the Society
and the Holy See meet.
 4 May 1988- the two panels meet again, which the personal
intervention of Lefebvre and Card. Ratzinger.
 5 May 1988- Card. Ratzinger and Lefebvre sign a protocol, to be
examined and to be finally approved by the Pope, to regularize
relations between the Holy See and the Society.
 6 May 1988- Lefebvre writes to Card. Ratzinger, insisting on the
Episcopal consecration of a Society member on 30 June, adding
that should the reply be negative, he will carry on with the
consecration; Card. Ratzinger asks Lefebvre to reconsider his
proposal.

12. Canonical History
20 May 1988- Lefebvre writes to the Pope,
suggesting that 30 June is the latest possible
date to consecration.
30 May 1988- Card. Ratzinger writes to
Lefebvre, saying that the question of a majority
in the Roman Commission was irrelevant, and
that Lefebvre should obey the Pope.
2 June 1988- Lefebvre writes to the Pope,
resuming his polemic against Vatican II, and
stating that the consecration is not against the
Holy See’s will.

13. Canonical History
 9 June 1988- Pope responds to Lefebvre, asking him not to
proceed with the consecrations.
 15 June 1988- Lefebvre announces his decision to consecrate the
four bishops on 30 June 1988.
 17 June 1988-Card. Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for
Bishops, send Lefebvre a canonical warning.
 29 June 1988- Priest are ordained at Econe; The Pope places a
car at Lefebvre’s disposable to bring him to Rome for a personal
encounter, but Lefebvre rejects the offer.
 30 June 1988- Lefebvre consecrates four bishops.
 1 July 1988- the decree of excommunication is published.
 2 July 1988- the Apostolic Letter, Ecclesia Dei is published.

14. Canonical History
 August 2000 – SSPX joined Jubilee Pilgrimage in
Rome
 July 7, 2007 – Summorum Pontificum was issued
 December 15, 2008 – Bernard Fellay requested anew
the removal of excommunication last July 1, 1988
 January 21, 2009 – Excommunication was lifted by
the Vatican Congregation for Bishops
 January 24, 2009 – SSPX Superior General Bishop
Fellay thanked the Pope Benedict for his unilateral,
benevolent, and courageous act.
 February 4, 2009 – Notes from the Secretariat of
State clarifying that “The four bishops, even though
they have been released from excommunication, have
no canonical function in the Church and do not licitly
exercise any ministry within it.”

15. Canonical History
 March 10, 2009 – Letter of Pope Benedict XVI TO
THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
concerning the remission of the excommunication of
the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre:
“The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in
the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society.
But some of those who put themselves forward as
great defenders of the Council also need to be
reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire
doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes
to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith
professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the
roots from which the tree draws its life.”

16. Canonical History
March 10, 2009 - “Certainly, for some time now, and
once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from
some representatives of that community many
unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an
obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the
truth, I must add that I have also received a number of
touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed
an openness of heart. But should not the great Church
also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her
great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to
her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable
of overlooking various faults and making every effort to
open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that
some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church
circles?”

17. Canonical History
 March 10, 2009 – “I myself saw, in the years after
1988, how the return of communities which had
been separated from Rome changed their interior
attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and
broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-
sided positions and broke down rigidity so that
positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we
be totally indifferent about a community which has
491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88
schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious
brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay
faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from
the Church?

18. Canonical History
 March 10, 2009 – “The fact that the Society of Saint Pius
X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not,
in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons.
As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in
the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate
ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction,
then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with
individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which
ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this
clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified,
the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its
ministers – even though they have been freed of the
ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any
ministry in the Church”.

19. Canonical History
March 12, 2009 – Communique by SSPX
Bernad Fellay accepting the doctrinal
dialogue
July 2, 2009 – Ecclesiae Unitatem
(incorporting PCED to CDF)
May 13, 2011 – Ecclesiae Universae
(detailed instruction on Summorum
Pontificum)

20. Canonical History
2012 – Bishop Williamson was expelled
together with some priests and formed
another SSPX group (accordingly) faithful
to Lefebvre. He consecrated another bishop.
This is called SSPX resistance (MC-SSPX)

21. Canonical History
 The story of SSPX breakaway groups is, for critics of the
SSPX, a cautionary tale about what happens when you
separate from Rome. Not only have the new bodies
themselves divided – the Society of St Pius V, for instance,
had an internal schism a few years after leaving the SSPX
– they have often ventured down the path of
sedevacantism. For some ultra-traditionalists, there have
been no genuine popes since Pius XII, since the rest, by
teaching error, forfeited their office. Others, called
sedeprivationists, hold a complex position about modern
pontiffs being only “potentially” pope.

23. Canonical History
November 20, 2016 - APOSTOLIC LETTER
Misericordia et Misera # 12, “For the pastoral
benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the
good will of their priests to strive with God’s
help for the recovery of full communion in the
Catholic Church.
March 27, 2017 – CDF issues a letter allowing
marriages in certain conditions. Also to
facilitate towards full institutional
regularization.

24. Canonical History
Nov. 22, 2018 meeting between Cardinal
Ladaria & new SSPX General Superior Fr.
Pagliarini @ CDF (PCED), Rome. ‘irreducible
doctrinal divergence’
Until today, after a series of granting the
conditions requested by the SSPX, they still
continue to say NO and clarifies further that
canonical recognition is not their primary
concern (CNA). They still continue to attack
the post conciliar reforms without changing the
tone.

25. Common Arguments
Tridentine Mass is the only True Mass
Tradition is excommunicated
The excommunication is invalid
They are acting in grave necessity
Vatican II contains heresy
Modernist Rome should convert

28. Common Fallacies
Their bishops have no sees
Bishop should not be the Superior General
No Divine Mercy feast
No Mysteries of Light
Weakened Papal obedience
Prone to sedevacantism
No Year of St. Paul/ Year of the Priests
Questioned the Canonization of Saint. JP II
et al
Questioned CCC & CIC, Opus Dei

29. Consequences of these errors
The Society establishes seminaries,
churches, chapels, and priories throughout
the world without any reference to the local
ordinaries in whose dioceses it carries out
these acts. This is contrary to the Code of
Canon Law (Canons 234, 237, 1215, 1223-
1228).
It ordains priests without the dismissorial
letters required by Canon Law (Canons
1015, 1018-1023).

30. Consequences of these errors
It gives Holy Communion to persons who
are well known sede vacantists (Canon
844). This is in spite of the fact that
Archbishop Lefebvre himself regarded such
movements as having a "schismatic spirit"
(Open Letter to Confused Catholics (1986),
p. 155).

31. Consequences of these errors
 It refused Pope Paul VI's command to close the
seminary at Econe and wind up the Society (see
the letter of the Commission of Cardinals to
Archbishop Lefebvre and that of Pope Paul VI to
the Archbishop, dated 6th May, 1975 and 29th
June, 1975 respectively. both of which are
reprinted, together with the Society s responses, in
Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume One, pp.
57- 59; 112- 119).

32. Consequences of these errors
 It carries out confirmations in other bishops'
dioceses. This is contrary to the Council of Trent
which decrees that:
"No bishop is permitted under any pretext or
privilege whatsoever to exercise episcopal
functions in the diocese of another bishop, without
the permission of the Ordinary of the place and
with regard to persons subordinate to the same
Ordinary. If any bishop does otherwise, he will be
lawfully suspended from his episcopal functions . .
." (Sess. VII, cp. 5, emphasis supplied).

33. Consequences of these errors
It purports to accept John Paul II as pope
and yet rejects parts of the 1983 Code of
Canon Law promulgated by him in his
capacity as supreme legislator (see, e.g.,
Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, ed.
Fr. Francois Laisney (1988), pp. 176-178).

34. Consequences of these errors
 Finally, in 1988 the Society consecrated four
bishops, knowing that this was against the express
will of the pope, and then in 1991 proceeded to
consecrate a further bishop in a diocese (Campos
in Brazil) where, as the Society itself recognizes,
there is already a valid bishop. This is contrary to
Canon 1013. Furthermore, the Society of St. Pius
X cites not a single declaration of a pope or a
council (to say nothing of theologians and Church
fathers) stating that there may be a legitimate
episcopal consecration against the will of the
pope. But according to Pope Pius XII, who was so
revered by Archbishop Lefebvre. an episcopal
consecration done against the will of the pope is
an offense against divine law.

35. Consequences of these errors
 "No one may legitimately confer episcopal
consecration unless in advance the particular
papal authorization is in [the consecrating
bishop's] possession. Through this criminal act
there is carried out a most serious attack on the
unity of the Church Itself. Therefore, for such a
consecration performed against divine and human
law, there is established the penalty of
excommunication . . ." (Apostolorum Principis
[1958]).

36. SSPX & Sedevacantism issues

37. Sedevacantism was so widespread in the
early days in Econe Seminary (Fr. Noel
Barbara who was deeply respected by
Archbishop Marcel, Fr. Guerard de
Lauriers, OP prof in Dogmatic Theology in
Econe, and Fr. Peter Morgan, SSPX English
District Superior & 1st
priest ordained by
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

38. As early as August 1979, Sedevacantism
STILL not a crime in SSPX.
May 1980, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
visited Fr. Cekada at Oyster Bay and expelled
them if they will not follow. The next
morning, the Archbishop changed his mind.
“all will be well as long as you do not publicly
attack the position of the society (SSPX). Not
necessary to put Pope John Paul II’s name
into the liturgical prayers, either

39. “Rome” Archbishop’s code word for the
Pope had lost the faith.
SSPX 2016, tolerates the priests who are
sedevacantists as long as they don’t talk
openly

48. Code of Canon Law
1983
TITLE VIII.
THE POWER OF
GOVERNANCE (Cann. 129 -
144)
Can. 144 §1. In factual or legal
common error and in positive and
probable doubt of law or of fact,
the Church supplies executive
power of governance for both the

49. Code of Canon Law
1983PART I.
THE SACRAMENTS
Can. 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or
true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided
that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided,
the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or
morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister
are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance,
Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-
Catholic ministers in whose Churches these
sacraments are valid.

50. Code of Canon Law
1983PART I.
THE SACRAMENTS
Can. 844 §4. If the danger of death is present or if,
in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or
conference of bishops, some other grave necessity
urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same
sacraments licitly…

51. Notes on Canon 144 & 844
Canon 844 is a Catholic Church canon law
contained within the 1983 Code of Canon
Law (1983 CIC),[a] which defines the licit
administration and reception of certain
sacraments of the Catholic Church in
normative and in particular exceptional
circumstances.

52. Notes on Canon 144 & 844
 Peter Vere pointed out "that the word 'Church' in" Canon 844 §2 is
capitalized. "The canon does not say that Catholics may receive
the aforementioned sacraments from 'non-Catholic ministers in
whose churches these sacraments are valid.' In interpreting this
canon," Vere wrote, "it is important" to pay attention to the "legal
norms" within the 1983 CIC. Vere considered Canon 16 §1 and
Canon 17: Canon 16 §1 "means that the canons contained within
the" 1983 CIC "are legitimately interpreted by" the legislator, i.e.
Pope John Paul II "and his successors", and "those whom he has
delegated to interpret the" 1983 CIC. (can.16§1) Canon 17 "means
that the canons must be understood according to both the text and
the context in which they find themselves. In cases of doubt, one
should seek references elsewhere as to what was the purpose of
the law, and the mind of the legislator in passing the law.

53. Notes on Canon 144 & 844
 This is not a permission to receive the sacraments from non-
Catholic ministers in whose churches the sacraments are valid.
 The recipient is Catholic for whom access to a Catholic minister is
physically or morally impossible.
 Only for reception of three sacraments: Penance, Eucharist, and
Anointing of the Sick.

54. Notes on Canon 144 & 844 Vere wrote in 1999 that with respect to the canonical situation of the
Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), "this prohibition has been confirmed"
by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), that Masses
celebrated by the SSPX "are also valid, but it is considered morally
illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are
physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass
celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing." Vere writes that
the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), which, in some
cases, "has been delegated the power of authentic interpretation of"
Canon 844 §2, "does not consider the lack of opportunity to assist at
a Tridentine Mass sufficient cause to receive the sacraments from a
Lefebvrite cleric." For this reason, "in light of" Canons 16–17 and
Norms 130–132, "one cannot invoke" Canon 844 §2 "in order to
receive the sacraments from a Lefebvrite priest simply because a
Tridentine Mass is lacking."

55. Notes on Canon 144 & 844
 "Furthermore," because the SSPX does not claim
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, wrote Vere, "the Catholic
Church is not certain at the present whether the SSPX
constitutes a Church like the Eastern Orthodox, or
whether the SSPX is simply a loose federation of
acephalous (independent) priests.
 Because "the Holy See has prudently chosen not to
classify the SSPX as a Church," Vere wrote, "one cannot
invoke" Canon 844 §2 "or the conditions of" Norm 123 or
Norms 130–132 "in order to receive the sacraments from
SSPX ministers.

56.  4th QUESTION
 Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in
reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion
with the Catholic Church?
 RESPONSE
 The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term.
“Because these Churches, although separated, have true
sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession –
the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain
linked to us by very close bonds”, they merit the title of “particular
or local Churches”, and are called sister Churches of the particular
Catholic Churches…

57.  5th QUESTION
 Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since
the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those
Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth
century?
 RESPONSE
 According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy
apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore,
deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial
Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the
sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral
substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic
doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

59. 12. For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that
those faithful who, for various reasons, attend
churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly
Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly
receive the sacramental absolution of their sins.
For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and
trusting in the good will of their priests to strive
with God’s help for the recovery of full
communion in the Catholic Church, I have
personally decided to extend this faculty beyond
the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are
made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the
sacramental sign of reconciliation through the
Church’s pardon.

60. Summary
 To sum up, then, here is an organization which
pays no regard whatsoever to the commands and
laws of legitimate authority in the Church and
which refuses to do the express will of the
supreme pontiff in matters of great importance for
use visible unity of the Church. Put all of these
things together and what we have is an
autonomous organization, an independent Church.
If this does not constitute schism, what does?

61. Summary
"Thou art Peter, a rock; and upon this rock
I will build My Church, and the gates of
hell shall not prevail against It." (Matthew
16:18). In other words, we have a divine
guarantee that the Church will not fail,
because She is built on the foundation
which is Peter. By its statements, however.
the Society of St. Pius X implies that the
Church is now built on Econe, rather than
on Rome.

62. Conclusion
In closing, as the bishop of Rome is the one to
whom the SSPX refuses submission, I would
like to remind those who adhere to Lefebvre's
schism of the following teaching imparted by
Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Romans: "Let
every soul be subject to higher powers: for
there is no power but from God: and those that
are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that
resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinances of
God. And they that resist, purchase to
themselves damnation." (Romans 13:1-2)

63. Conclusion
 Obedience to the Magisterium of the Church and especially to Her
visible leader, the Pope, is an essential criterion for faithfulness to
God. Pope St. Pius X emphasized this in a speech on May 10, 1909,
when he said "Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the
cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be
with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not
leave Her... But judge them by their works. If they despise the
shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all
means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives
and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to
speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of
the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the
cornerstone." (Eph. 2:20)

65. Juan 19:30