I read it as, keeping yourself in communion with the Church. Associating with schismatic groups of any kind could tend to draw one away from full communion with the Church. (“Communion” in the sense of “belonging”; this isn’t referring to the reception of the Eucharist.)
‘In Communion’ is another technical term with a legal meaning. It is often used loosely. If you are baptised and are not excommunicated, you are in communion. Bp Grosseteste was at loggerheads with the pope of the day, but he was always in communion.
‘Schism’. Just to point out that the SSPX have never been in schism within the formal meaning of the word.
It is well to define this word. Not the least strength of the Catholic Faith that has kept it true to its mandate from Christ is its insistence on defining words before using them.
The Modern world throws round words for their emotional baggage, disregarding their meaning, and therefore emptying them of content;
A classic trick of the Marxists was to use the old words,but to re-define their meanings: e.g. ‘peace’ meant ‘Communist Victory’ etc etc.
A good friend of mine,one Michael O’Connor (R.I.P.), used to attend communist meetings in Australia (flanked by two sturdy comrades) and would stand up and say, ‘Yes, you are right! The communists do want peace! They want a piece of this country and a piece of that country…’
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 usurpation of jurisdiction: denial of the authority of the Church to apportion jurisdiction, and it would therefore be schismatic [although St Athanasius, Bp Eusebius and other faithful Catholics did precisely this during the Arian crisis … but let that rest for now]. Mgr Lefebvre recognised that an objective state of emergency existed, 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”**
See *Cath. Encyclopaedia *on
New Advent website, article on Schism
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 more than a decade I have fully supported the SSPX (as well as my local parish). The last straw for me was the letter from an Irish bishop - Bp O’Connor of Kerry - refusing to implement
Ecclesia Dei - which is identified as a *Motu Proprio *& therefore, by definition, ‘A statement issued on the Pope’s own initiative and 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 possibly believed he was going to get away with it, on the basis of past experience of other bishops in the previous decades, and he did: because he was not required to implement this ruling of the Pope. Hence, it seemed clear to me, the SSPX were correct in diagnosing a state of emergency, & taking appropriate emergency measures. At least some of the people who had made the formal petition to their Local Ordinary (= bishop) under the terms of
Ecclesia Dei, subsequently became supporters of the SSPX.
