IN DEFENSE OF SSPX:

CatholicCulture reviewed this website and gave it an excellent rating for usability, but a yellow-flag warning for promoting the SSPX Masses, which they claim are illicit.  But now that Pope Benedict XVI has published the motu proprio freeing the Latin Mass, we can see that the SSPX Latin Masses are NOT illicit.

It seems that some others agree with Catholic Culture.  Some people have sent comments taken from EWTN.  Very few have researched this complex issue in depth. They are satisfied with comments from their favorite priest and Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter, "Ecclesia Dei" which stated that Archbishop Lefebvre had "incurred the grave penalty of excommunication".

On the surface, it looks bad for Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers, however, a little research uncovers a different perspective and leads a thinking person to a different conclusion.  To put it briefly, Canon Law says it is perfectly valid for an archbishop to consecrate bishops, WITHOUT the permission of the Pope, if an archbishop thinks it is necessary to preserve the Faith.

Archbishop Lefebvre seriously thought it was a necessity because he had already expressed the concern that Rome was losing the Faith.  Therefore, the excommunication warned of on June 17, for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382), was not incurred because a person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity.  If one inculpably thought there was a necessity, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70), nor would he incur any automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

So, Pope John Paul II's statement is incorrect. Not every statement a pope makes is an infallible statement.

On this issue some modernists claim that the Canon Law says the pope is the "sumpreme legislature" and can say whatever he wants and we have to believe it.  However, he cannot arbitrarily make statements that go against the traditions of the Church.  Pope Urban (or some other pope) said, "When the pope goes against the traditions of the Church, he does not have to be believed."

The archbishop was not breaking from Rome, because he and his society officially accept the Roman Pontiff as the Vicar of Christ on earth.  The archbishop was not breaking from anything, rather he was preserving something.  He was preserving the Faith, in a world which was abandoning it.  And this is not schism.  If anybody is in schism, it is those who break away from the traditions of the Catholic Faith.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." [Galatians 1:8]

For more information on this very important issue of our times, take a look at SSPX FAQ. Also read the story of Saint Athanasius and learn the important lesson that "Faith Is Greater Than Obedience" (a book by Fr. Drexel).  But then you have to know the Faith. That's the hard part.