Bishop Athanasius Schneider has recently thrown down the glove in an interview with LifeSiteNews, claiming that those of us who believe the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is still in schism have “a very narrow, legalistic view of the reality of the Church” and we are “putting the letter of the Canon Law above the importance, the primary importance of the fullness of the Catholic faith and of the traditional liturgy.”
Is this a fair and accurate assessment? Should we trust the auxiliary bishop of Astana when he praises Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as “a prophet of our time” and tells priests they can “go to the SSPX” if they are forbidden to use the 1962 Missal? Should the laity be prompted by his encouragement to attend SSPX Masses and financially support them?
At the beginning of last year, I wrote an open letter, published by CWR, to a Polish priest who left the Dominican Order to adhere to the SSPX. This was a testimony of my experiences with this fractious and splintering religious group in the traditional Catholic movement, and of my decision to leave its boundaries and embrace the unity of Rome. Since my letter was published, I have publicly debated a pro-SSPX apologist, engaged in many discussions with both former and current supporters of Msgr. Lefebvre’s movement, and created the “Contra Traddom” YouTube and podcast series with John Salza and Dom Dalmasso at The Logos Project.
Our collaborative investigation into the confusing and controversial situation of the SSPX has brought some key issues into focus, and I will present some of them in this article as a more thorough counterpart to my personal testimony. While not exhaustive, it will suffice to show the shoddy scholarship and even outright dishonesty of the SSPX and its apologists.
In my letter to Fr. Gołaski, I stated that the movement of Msgr. Lefebvre was indeed a schism. I knew this both from my own unexpected journey and from Pope St. John Paul II’s declaration in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta. But I have been surprised to discover that a significant number of Catholics do not believe that the SSPX is in schism at all. Why is there such a wide divergence between the judgement of four popes (Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis) and Catholics who are sympathetic to the SSPX? The reason is the same as I gave in my open letter: the SSPX and its proponents have erected a “Catholic façade”, and they have built it over many years with the help of complicit bishops and priests they have won over to their cause. In the thick clouds and clamor of sophistry and subterfuge, they have drowned out the simple and clear words of the Church’s highest authority.
Let us unveil the truth of the matter, as it stands today. Here are six common arguments that have been made by Bishop Schneider and other defenders of the SSPX, each followed by a brief rebuttal:
Objection 1: The SSPX accepts the entirety of Catholic teaching on the papacy; it acknowledges the authority of the reigning pope and desires to be united with Rome. Because of this, it rejects Sedevacantism (a theory that the last true pope was Pius XII in 1958) and includes the pope’s name in the Canon of the Mass and in prayers at Benediction. Unlike the Orthodox churches, the SSPX has not set up a parallel hierarchy and ecclesial institutions, nor has it denied the divine right of the pope to command, two necessary requisites for schism. Therefore, the SSPX is not schismatic.
On the contrary, the members of the SSPX and its adherents do not give the full assent of both intellect and will to the Church’s doctrine of the papacy, nor do they submit to the Supreme Pontiff in important matters of faith, discipline, and governance. They profess faith in the papacy and recognize the reigning pope, but in their public works of teaching, government, and sacramental worship they deny the primacy of Peter’s successor, and the authority of the apostolic bishops in whose territories they have erected independent chapels. Our Lord Jesus Christ teaches: “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt 7:21); and the apostle James writes: “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead” (Jas 2:26).
The continued sacrificing of Sedevacantists as scapegoats falls flat, for they also confess belief in the Petrine doctrines, and only differ in their refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the current pope (indeed, the SSPX is even more culpable than the Sedevacantists, for its leaders have no doubts as to the Pope’s existence and identity). Otherwise, the modus operandi of both SSPX and Sedevacantist clergy are in almost perfect accord, justifying their independent ministry from Rome by proclaiming a state of necessity in the Church and claiming supplied jurisdiction for themselves. The Church’s authority does not have the final say in their practice of religion and the instruction of their followers…they do. Thus, in practice they have set up a parallel hierarchy, even if not a parallel papacy or bishoprics. They have also erected rival institutions, such as seminaries, schools, and chapels with independent celebrations of the Eucharist, Baptisms, Confirmations, Marriages, and Ordinations, each with sacramental registries separate from the local Catholic churches overseen by the bishop. They have even erected their own marriage tribunals and annulment process, during which they require their adherents to swear on the Holy Gospels to have nothing to do with the bishops’ tribunals!
The facts presented above demonstrate that the SSPX do indeed deny the pope his divine right to command, and have done so for almost fifty years. They do the same by undermining the rights of the bishops he has appointed. Their actions proclaim what is in their hearts, though their lips bring forth concealing lies. Some Old Catholics include the Pope’s name in their Masses, but they are not in communion with him by this fact. Believing in the papacy and recognizing the pope are not enough; a Catholic must be united to him through the bonds of charity achieved only by full unity of governance and worship, as St. Augustine makes clear: “By sinful dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe” (De fide et symbolo).1
Objection 2: The SSPX has never officially been declared to be in schism, and no Catholic can do so on his own authority. Members of the hierarchy who have been appointed to various assignments related to the SSPX, such as Cardinal Gagnon, Cardinal Hoyos, and Bishop Schneider, have all denied the SSPX are in schism. Even Pope Francis anecdotally told Bishop Vitus Huonder that the SSPX “is not a schismatic community”, and gave him permission to move into a residence of the SSPX in Switzerland. Therefore, the SSPX is not schismatic.
On the contrary, the movement of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (viz., the SSPX, its associates, and adherents) has been declared to be in schism by the highest authority in the Church. In a letter sent to Lefebvre on October 11, 1976, Pope Paul VI reprimanded him for “acts committed in rebellion against the one true Church of God” and admonished him to become “once again an edifying subject in full ecclesial communion.”2 Lefebvre refused, continuing to operate in a state of suppression and suspension, unlawfully ordaining priests throughout the next decade.
Then, following his four consecrations of bishops against the will of the Supreme Pontiff, Pope John Paul II made the definitive declaration of schism twice, both in the decree of schism and excommunication3 issued on July 1, 1988 by his prefect for the Congregation of Bishops, Cardinal Bernardin Gantin, and in his apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei Afflicta on July 2, 1988.4 This declaration has never been withdrawn; in fact, it has been upheld by both Benedict XVI and Francis, even after the lifting of the excommunications on the four SSPX bishops in 2009 and the granting of faculties for confession in 2016. This will be explained in the answers to Objections 3 and 4.
Bishop Huonder’s unsubstantiated anecdotal account of Pope Francis’ personal opinion is outweighed by the pope’s official statements given in his letter to the bishops accompanying Traditiones Custodes and in his apostolic letter Misericordia et Misera. In the former he unambiguously refers to the movement of Mons. Lefebvre as a “schism”,5 and in the latter he stresses that the priests of the SSPX must “strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church.”6 Concerning the permission given to Bishop Huonder to retire to a house of the SSPX: I will grant this as favorable if Pope Francis’ appointment of Fr. James Martin to the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communications is also praised as right and prudent.
For each of the opinions by cardinals and bishops that the SSPX is not in schism (assuming these opinions have been presented accurately), there are other opinions by equally authoritative cardinals and bishops who have affirmed that the SSPX is in schism; for example, Cardinal Raymond Burke, Cardinal Gerard Mueller, and Venerable Fulton Sheen, to name a few. Therefore, to settle the matter we must prefer the opinions of those who are in accord with the determination of the Bishop of Rome, who has clearly stated that the leadership of the SSPX was guilty of “schismatic acts” and that Catholics must “be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and to cease their support in any way for the movement.”7
Objection 3: Pope Francis has granted habitual, ordinary, and universal faculties to the SSPX for confessions and marriages, and since this would contradict Canon Law if they were schismatics, the Roman Pontiff has implicitly declared that they are not, de facto. Therefore, the SSPX is not schismatic.
On the contrary, it does not contradict Canon Law because there have always been exceptional instances of necessity in which the Church recognizes as valid and licit the reception of sacraments from priests who may be immoral, schismatic, or even laicized and irreligious (see Canons 844 §2 and 976-977). This demonstrates an important precedent: for the good of souls, the Church has the power to grant faculties even to priests who are not in good standing, but this is not an approval of them or their situation. In fact, this is precisely what Pope Francis states in his letter Misericordia et Misera: “For the pastoral benefit of these faithful [who attend churches officiated by the SSPX], 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 be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”8
It is therefore ignorant or dishonest to claim that Pope Francis has “implicitly declared, de facto” that the SSPX is not schismatic, when he explicitly declares that they need “to recover full communion in the Catholic Church”! (Nota Bene: There are only three ways not to be in full communion with the Church: heresy, apostasy, and schism9).
Objection 4: The situation of the SSPX has changed since the episcopal consecrations by Lefebvre in 1988: the excommunications on the four bishops were lifted by Pope Benedict in 2009, and Pope Francis granted them faculties for confessions and marriages in 2016-17. Therefore, the SSPX is not schismatic.
On the contrary, the contumacy of the SSPX’s schismatic actions (i.e., illicit Masses, ordinations, annulment courts, rejection of the new rite of Mass as evil, etc.) has remained the same to the present day, as also evidenced by the fact that no reunion with Rome occurred after the doctrinal discussions and negotiations held from 2009 to 2012. According to Pope Benedict XVI in his Letter to the Bishops Concerning the Remission of the Excommunication of the Four Bishops Consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, the lifting of the censures from the four bishops in 2009 was “a gesture of mercy” and that “the remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four bishops once more to return [to unity].”10
He clarified further that “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.”11 It is also worth pointing out the precedent set by Pope Paul VI in 1965 when he lifted the declared excommunication on the Orthodox church, which obviously did not end the schism. A distinction must be made between the declared censure and the crime/sin.
Pope Benedict XVI also addressed the situation of the SSPX in his letter to the bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum, where he explains that with the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Afflicta Pope John Paul II “primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately, this reconciliation has not yet come about.”12 These papal pronouncements by Pope Benedict are consistent not only with those of his predecessor, but also with one of the first public statements he made as Cardinal Ratzinger in his Address to the Bishops of Chile in 1988, where he expressed the hope that “the schism of Lefebvre would not be of long duration.”13
Regarding the sacramental faculties given to the SSPX by Pope Francis, see reply to Objection 3.
Objection 5: The fact that the situation of the SSPX is being handled by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith proves that it is Catholic, since dialogue with schismatics would be conducted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU). Furthermore, in 1994 the head of the PCPCU, Edward Cardinal Cassidy, issued a statement that “the situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory.” Therefore, the SSPX is not schismatic.
On the contrary, the situation of the SSPX is handled by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) because the Ecclesia Dei Commission (EDC), established by Pope John Paul II to heal the schism of Lefebvre, was joined to it by Pope Benedict XVI. This is yet another example of poor scholarship on the part of the SSPX apologists. In his Letter to the Bishops Concerning the Remission of the Excommunication of the Four Bishops Consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, Pope Benedict XVI declared: “It is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”—the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope—to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes.”14
Although Pope Francis suppressed the EDC in 2019 at the request of the CDF, he reassigned the duties of the EDC in their entirety to the CDF, directing that within the Congregation “a specific Section will be instituted, committed to continuing the work of supervision, promotion and protection” previously done by the EDC.15Therefore, the duties of the suppressed Commission, as decreed by Pope John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, are now the responsibility of the CDF. The first of these is “the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the movement of Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church.”16 This brief account of the historical and legal development of the EDC demonstrates that the work of this new Section of the CDF is the same as that of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity: reunion with the Church and the Pope. (Although the former names for these two curial departments have been used for the sake of historical clarity, they are now called the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Christian Unity).
As to the 1994 statement issued by Cardinal Cassidy, it does not prove that the SSPX are not a schismatic movement, especially in light of all the papal declarations. The fact that it is not recognized by PCPCU as “another Church or Ecclesial Community” in the specific sense used by the Directory does not mean that the SSPX is in full communion. Also, it is an “internal matter” of the Catholic Church in the same way that dissident movements like Call to Action, Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, Women’s Ordination Conference, New Ways Ministries, or most recently, the German Bishops’ Conference, are “internal matters” of the Catholic Church. These are not members of established Protestant or Orthodox Churches; they are recent breakaway groups of men and women who were Roman Catholics. Nonetheless, they are schismatic and/or heretical and need to be reconciled with the Church. The same holds true for a society of vagabond Roman clergy and their adherents who have refused to accept and participate in the common faith, worship, and governance of the Church for half a century.
Objection 6: The SSPX is not to blame for its irregular canonical status, rather this is an unfortunate and temporary result of the extraordinary crisis in the Church since Vatican II. The Society’s leadership has the duty to resist and disobey the popes and the bishops when they believe that their teaching and commands come into conflict with the higher laws of God or with the received Tradition. Therefore, the SSPX is justified and not schismatic.
On the contrary, there is never justification for schismatic actions and the fabrication of a schismatic movement. This has always been the constant attitude of the Church toward schism, as the Catholic Encyclopedia makes surprisingly clear:
Some have claimed the introduction into the Church of abuses, dogmatic and liturgical novelties, superstitions, with which they are permitted, even bound, not to ally themselves. Without entering into the foundation of these charges it should be noted that the [Fathers of the Church cited in the article] do not mention or admit a single exception. If we accept their statements, separation from the Church is necessarily an evil, an injurious and blameworthy act, and abandoning the true way of salvation, and this independent of all contingent circumstances. Moreover, the doctrines of the Fathers exclude a priori any such attempt at justification; to use their words, it is forbidden for individuals or particular or national churches to constitute themselves judges of the universal Church; the mere fact of having it against one carries its own condemnation. St. Augustine summed up all his controversy with the Donatists in the maxim: “The whole world unhesitatingly declares them wrong who separate themselves from the whole world in whatsoever portion of the whole world.”17
Good ends or intentions can never justify evil means; this is an immutable principal of the moral law of God.18 I may not run over a man in my car because I need to get my child to the hospital. Neither can any Catholic inflict wounds upon the Body of Christ because there is crisis in the Church. No saint in history ever has acted or ever will act in such an abusive and destructive manner.
* * *
From what has been presented thus far, it should be evident that Bishop Schneider and other SSPX defenders have not diligently or impartially assessed the situation of this independent clerical organization in light of the Holy See’s past and recent statements, nor have they fully considered the ongoing behavior of its members and adherents. Yet they do not hesitate to give it their full and unqualified praise and approbation. Many souls are now flocking to the SSPX and embracing its tenets and attitudes as a result of this scandalous irresponsibility.
Perhaps these men are not fully aware of the gravity of what Archbishop Lefebvre did in 1988; only thirty years prior in 1958, Pope Pius XII had described the same actions by Chinese bishops as “criminal and sacrilegious”.19 Lefebvre’s decision to consecrate bishops against the will of the Holy Father was an act of violence toward holy Mother Church, but the SSPX has never repented of its founder’s acts of clerical dominance and injustice. To this day, they exalt him as a hero and revere him as a saint. This is ignored by the bishops, priests and laymen who are eager to cover up this abuse of the Church and her sacraments, eagerly presenting Lefebvre and the SSPX as model Catholics to be imitated and admired.
The SSPX has also broken away from God’s chain of command, the inseparable links of the Great Commission. This Great Commission flows from both the divine nature and the works of God in salvation history. God is an eternal procession of divine missions, and his authority on earth is communicated in the same way. We learn from the Church that the plan of God is “a grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, stemming immediately from Trinitarian love. It unfolds in the work of creation, the whole history of salvation after the fall, and the missions of the Son and the Spirit, which are continued in the mission of the Church.”20 Only those ministers who have been properly commissioned can teach, govern, and sacramentally sanctify God’s holy people.
The bishops and priests of the SSPX still have no canonical status in the Church, meaning they are literally “unhinged” priests (a.k.a., not incardinated). For those who have already abandoned the Church to join the movement of the SSPX, St. Francis De Sales has these words: “Tell me, what business had you to hear them and believe them without having any assurance of their commission and of the approval of Our Lord, whose legates they called themselves? In a word, you have no justification for quitting that ancient Church in which you were baptized, on the faith of preachers who had no legitimate mission from the Master.”21
Let us therefore hold to account all complicit clergy who are soft on sin, no matter how genuine they might seem or how beautiful their liturgies. This is not “narrow” or “legalistic”, this is the apostolic nature of the Church as Christ our Lord constituted it. We join our voices with the great abbot and Benedictine reformer, Dom Prosper Gueranger: “We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. They must be aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors.”22
(Editor’s note: This essay has been edited for content and tone since being posted. While Mr. Bartel’s arguments in response to the six objections are reasonable and well-stated, I have concluded that some of the language in the final section was problematic and contentious, so it has been removed. I apologize to Mr. Bartel and to readers for the editorial lapses on my part.)
Endnotes
1 Augustine, Faith and the Creed, 10, in The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 3, ed. & trans. William A. Jurgens (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1970), 44. See also Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, “Schism”.
2 Pope Paul VI, Letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (11 October 1976).
3 Office of the Congregation for Bishops, Decree of Excommunication (1 July 1988).
4 Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei Afflicta (July 2, 1988), §§3-5.
5 Pope Francis, Letter to the Bishops of the Whole World, that Accompanies the Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio Data” Traditionis Custodes (16 July 2021).
6 Pope Francis, Apostolic Letter at the Conclusion of the Jubilee of Mercy Misericordia et misera (20 November 2016), §12.
7 Ecclesia Dei, §§3-5.
8 Misericordia et misera, §12.
9 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 817.
10 Pope Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops Concerning the Remission of the Excommunication of the Four Bishops Consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre (10 March 2009).
11 Ibid.
12 Pope Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the Occasion of the Publication of the Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio Data” Summorum Pontificum (7 July 2007).
12 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Address to the Bishops of Chile (13 July 1988).
14 Pope Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops Concerning the Remission of the Excommunication of the Four Bishops Consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre (10 March 2009).
15 Pope Francis, Apostolic Letter in the Form of Motu Proprio on the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” (19 January 2019).
16 Ecclesia Dei, §6
17 Jacques Forget, “Schism,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia.
18 CCC, 1753.
19 Pope Pius XII, Encyclical on Communism and the Church in China Ad apostolorum principis (29 June 1958), §41.
20 CCC, 257.
21 Francis De Sales, The Catholic Controversy (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books, 1989), 4.
22 Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, vol. 4, trans. Laurence Shepherd (New York: Benziger, 1909), 286.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
If the Society of Pius X is in schism, does that mean the Eucharist as confected by them at Mass is not verily the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?
Does it work that way with the Eastern Orthodox Church? I thought they had the same True Presence in the Eucharist even though they broke away from Rome. I always bless myself when passing an Orthodox church for that reason.
Wnat you do is correct, because the Orthodox reserve the Blessed Sacrament. Acknowledging that Christ is physically present in the tabernacle is appropriate.
Thank you for that Ann.
You could have been writing my story in your post! God bless you and how blessed we are to have the SSPX!
That is an odd thing to say? Obviously the SSPX’s Eucharists are valid like the Eastern Orthodox or the Polish National Catholics and similar groups. Are their Masses licit and canonically regular?
Um clearly not.
Dear Deacon Edward, I have been advised from those I suspect “in the know” that their consecrations of priests were valid; but, “illicit”. Validity matters, of course, to affect the sacraments. As far as parsing out how by the “vis” (St. Thomas Aquinas) of the SSPX Priest makes present the ACTUAL Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, I cannot tell you with 100% intellectual certainty. What intellect lacks, Faith supplies and, for my part, I am 100% confident that Christ is truly present in the consecrated host. Not only that, our Priests do as well. Last time I was able to make the drive to the High Mass at my SSPX Chapel (over 2 hours away. I make it every other week weather permitting), I remained after (like I usually do) to give proper thanks for reception of the Lord. While I was only among a number of laity remaining as late after the mass had ended, I was privy to see Fr. come out of the sacristy with a purificator in hand. After he said his own prayers, he got up, walked over to the communion rail and gently wiped an area of the rail he suspected “might” have minute traces of Our Lord’s precious body present. Because our Chapel family is growing, Father had to fracture the last few remaining hosts so everyone who presented themselves for communion could receive. What I witnessed was a sermon in essence without words; a sermon delivered by the deliberate actions of a man who is fulfilling his calling to Love, Serve and Adore God. What I have witnessed since leaving the NO Parish I used to attend is AUTHENTIC Catholicism. I’m a person rather late to the party, so-to-speak. The Latin Mass was taken from me when I was a toddler. At 57, I found it again and it is like responding to an authentic call to BE Catholic. I have integrated, absorbed, and digested as much of what has been given to me from the ambo and the altar as possible. It’s all so beautifully inspiring, beautifully uplifting, beautifully True and wonderfully CATHOLIC. I can never go back to the NO Missae. While there, I perfected the art of “receiving” our Lord while intentionally ignoring, blocking out, blinding myself to all that was offensive about the service. I had closed myself off to all the noise, praxis, and distraction only to receive. In the end, I had to ask myself, “Am I really attending mass at all?”. So, I left and will never return so long as the SSPX continues the work of the Catholic Church, there you will be able to find me. I wish you and your family a most blessed Lent! Pax Christi te!
Spot on brother. You are not alone.
Mark, beautifully said! I too, now 60, had the true Mass taken away from me as a young girl and I thank God for uniting to the TRUE and TRADITIONAL SACRED LITURGY, albeit late in my life. I would not attend a N/O rite again. What the faithful have been deprived of by the wolves is beyond words. I pray for many more to wake up and seek the TRUTH.
See here http://www.traditionalcatholic.co/search/Search/ then type in Find In Page “Problems with the modern(ist) Church” and look into so much detailed info regarding the apostasy at the Vatican since their infiltration by world Masonry and Communism. SSPX is holding the fort against the tide same as the minority of Catholics did during the Arian crisis.
No. For example, many Eastern Orthdox Churches are in schism and their sacraments are still valid. But notice that God won’t allow Satan to claim that the SSPX is in schism or certainly Jorge Bergoglio would being just that. It’s important to remember that everything that is happening to the Church has been revealed in prophecies and apparitions by our Blessed Mother. God’s hand is behind it all. It’s poetic when you think that at least the symbol of the salvation of the Church came down to one single bishop. Have no fear the Church will be restored to an even greater glory, but first the Catholic faith will virtually collaspe all around the world.
“Christus Vincit” is a wonderful book by Bidhop Schneider. In reading it one encounters a very intelligent and a sincerely faithful man.
Since the liturgy of the Mass was watered down by a Masonic interloper one may wonder why none of the ‘good pipes’ restored the reverent prayers and included a Confiteor, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, Ecce Homo echo through the ages as communion with the saints. It is such an easy thing to do yet clerical domineers would rather kiss Korans and homage pagan idols. That is clericalism writ large. May Christ have Mercy on His suffering Church.
A lot of opinion declared as fact, by someone carrying an obvious animus. Overall, it does the opposite of its intention by making a uncommitted reader more sympathetic to the SSPX.
I was going to comment the same – this article is just opinions by Mr. Bartel, a layperson.
Dear Shawn Marshall, you wrote:
“…one may wonder why none of the ‘good pipes’ restored the reverent prayers and included a Confiteor, Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, Ecce Homo echo through the ages…”
The “Confiteor” has been revised, but the Sanctus, Pater Noster, Agnus Dei, etc. are all there. BTW, an “Ecce Homo” was never there.
If I may be so bold as to interpret what I believe Shawn intended – The basic short and foundational prayers could easily have been retained and recited by the populace in Latin in a new order of the Mass.
“Ecce Agnus Dei” is said in Latin in the Extraordinary Form and in English in the Ordinary Form.
And BTW, “Ecce Homo” is proclaimed (in Latin) at Tridentine Masses in the scriptural readings of the Triduum. An attentive listener will soon hear Pilate say the words. What thinkest thou? Pilate knows only the man only and finds no deceit in him. John the Baptist knew Jesus from the womb as the Sacrificial Lamb of God qui tollit peccata mundi.
In my parish, St. Margaret Mary in Oakland, CA, the Novus Ordo Mass is celebrated in Latin.
It has the Introit, the revised Confiteor in Latin, which contains the words “in what I have failed to do,” and the mea culpas with the triple chest strikes. The Readings and the homily are in English, but the Canon, the Agnus Dei, the Pater Noster and all other parts of the Mass are in Latin.
It also has the “ECCE AGNUS DEI” not “ECCE HOMO.” “Ecce Agnus Dei” is NOT “Ecce Homo.” The expression, “Ecce Homo” is never a part of the Mass.
And, BTW, I attend the Novus Ordo during weekdays and the Tridentine on Sundays and holy days of obligation. Both in Latin and I love them both.
meiron,
Okay, I get you. “Ecce Homo” is in the Gospel readings of the Passion on Palm Sunday and Good Friday.
But my reply was to Shawn Marshall who wrote: “Ecce Homo echo through the ages as communion with the saints.”
I think Shawn should know that the difference between “Ecce Agnus Dei” and “Ecce Homo” is the difference between St. John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate.
Please explain how the SSPX can be in schism yet be a Catholic society established “by diocesan right” in Canon Law in Argentina…?
J Seleisi: I, too, would like to know the answer to your question, but I can’t seem find it. I do recall a news story sometime ago that the Argentina government (the state, not the Church) has recognized SSPX as part of the Catholic Church and has included it in its official registry of churches. That’s all. I hope some other posters can supply us with the correct answer. God bless you.
To J. Selesi and Margarita,
Thank you for your question. I have a friend in Argentina who was kind enough to provide me with a translation of this news release from the Spanish news section of the SSPX website:
“On April 12, 2015, the Argentine newspaper Clarín announced the decision of the Secretary of Worship, Guillermo R. Oliveri, published in the Official Gazette of the Argentine Republic on April 9, 2015, according to which the Fraternity of Saint Pius X was recognized in Argentina as a legal person and its registration in the Registry of Institutes of Consecrated Life was arranged, which contains the list of orders and Catholic religious congregations present in Argentina.
This decision was made possible – among other formalities to be fulfilled – by a letter from the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Mario Aurelio Poli, sent to the Secretariat of Worship, accompanying the process initiated in 2011 in said Secretariat by the authorities of the Fraternity. This letter, in which the Archbishop of Buenos Aires ‘requests that the Fraternity of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary (Fraternidad San Pío X) be considered, until it finds the definitive legal framework in the universal Church, as if it were an association of diocesan law.’ is a necessary condition that must be met by all Catholic religious congregations in Argentina.
The document of Cardinal Poli has no canonical incidence, since it cannot serve as the Roman authority, which is the only one that can determine the canonical situation of the Fraternity. It is only a requirement that enables an administrative decision of the Argentine State, ‘until (the Fraternity of Saint Pius X) finds the definitive legal framework in the universal Church.’
It must be known that in Argentina the apostolate of Catholic religious congregations can only be developed within an administrative and legal framework conditioned by registration in the Registry of Institutes of Consecrated Life, after consulting the ecclesiastical authority.
The fact that Cardinal Poli succeeded Cardinal Bergoglio in the archiepiscopal seat of Buenos Aires may legitimately lead one to believe that this decision was not made without consulting Pope Francis. However, it is only a strictly administrative matter in the specific context of the Argentine Republic.”
Source: https://sspx.news/es/content/28924
Thank you, Andrew Bartel.
That’s good to know. Sometimes I get confused between the SSPX situation in Buenos Aires and that of Campos in Brazil. The latter has been reported to have reconciled with the Church, hasn’t it?
It would be nice to know how the Campos reconciliation came about. Could you, perhaps, write an article how it was done? Did the Campos SSPX denounce the society? Did it promise to recognize Vatican II? Did it submit its chapels to the diocesan system? Have there been other SSPX groups in the world that have come back to the fold?
Thank you, too, for this wonderful article that answers a lot of questions concerning the status of SSPX. Those are solid arguments, backed up by definitive papal documents. And in the style of St. Thomas Aquinas, yet. Your Dominican Third Order must be very proud.
Congratulations and God bless you with a holy Lent.
Thank you for your kind words, Margarita.
Here are two links about the Campos reconciliation with the Church:
https://zenit.org/2002/01/18/traditionalist-schism-in-brazil-ends/
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4141
The second one (a Letter of Pope John Paul II) is especially important to this debate. If the schism of the SSPX was truly ended, its defenders should be able to produce a letter or papal document such as this as proof.
St. Marcel Lefebvre, pray for us!
French teacher ye might as well have posted “St Martin Luther pray for us.”
Or St. Mel Gibson, pray for us!
Or St. Henry VIII, pray for us.
A common defect in explicitly or implicitly suggesting that the SSPX are fundamentally protestant (the above being the implicit variety) is that it minimizes doctrine. Obedience to the present occupant of the Office is treated as the essence of the Catholic faith. It is not. The essence of the Catholic faith is its content.. its beliefs. The SSPX does not reject any of the sacraments as such. And by as such I mean not a question of form or faculty. Martin Luther rejected some sacraments as existing. The SSPX also rejects no doctrine of the Catholic faith.
What is more the tendency of this article to minimize the distinction between disobedience and schism is lamentable. To clarify by way of example let us phrase attitudes toward the Pope in the light of simple fatherhood.
A) you are my father but I willing chose to disobey you
B) You are my father but I believe what you ask is evil, I cannot obey you
D) You are my father so I will obey ANYTHING you command
C) You are not my father, and I have never had and will never have such a father.
A and B accept the authority of and the identity of the father. B is no doubt more wholesome
C Refuses not merely obedience to an admitted authority, or even refuses that the person in question rightly possesses such authority. It rejects the existence of that authority at all.
D is that blind obedience which is NOT to be praised
But schism is a canonical crime. If someone say you act was “murderous” they are implying your guilt, but they are not formally judging and declaring you guilty. If some authority imposes penalties after such a statement, they are punishing based on implication. Neither of these are a formal declaration of guilt. So what, must the authorities publish a formal declaration stating that the SSPX and the member of such are guilty of schism? Yes! Yes actually, that is exactly what is required.
St. Joan of Arc, pray for us!
St Joan of Arc, pray for us.
‘ Finally, responding to a question about errors made during these ten years of his pontificate, the Pope pointed to the cause of each error: impatience. “Sometimes the blood rises to my head. Then you lose patience, and when you lose peace, you slip and make mistakes. You have to know how to wait.” ‘
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-03/pope-francis-i-dream-of-a-more-pastoral-more-open-church.html
Lefebvre/consecrated bishops were guilty of schismatic acts, not of schism. Cardinal Hoyos has twice come out and stated the society has NEVER been in schism. Clearly then the church has not affirmed the society is in fact in schism…neither the members of the SSPX nor the faithful who go to the SSPX parishes have ever been declared schismatic.
(bishops and priests of the SSPX are not ministers of Christ?? … they are thieves and robbers who have entered the sheepfold, not by the door. . They have no mission from the Church; they can produce no letters of credit) is vile and slander.
sam:
Or this bit of (slander?) by Pope Benedict XVI, except from the Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church, March 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.”
Here’s the link: (Also listed as reference by the above article)
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_2009“”0″310_remissione-scomunica.html
The link to your citation does not work.
These responses make perfect sense to me.
The Church has had terrible popes before, but she has remained the one, holy and apostolic Church founded by our Savior.
And, remember, Bergoglio was nowhere to be found when Lefebvre and his sect bolted. His move was made during a run of historically great and unfailingly sensible popes.
And, as far as I know, not even Lefebvre could not point to anything specific in the documents of Vatican II to justify his defiance.
When justifying his rebellion, Rev. Martin Luther pointed to supposed faults by members of the Church’s hierarchy. Whether or not those faults were real is immaterial to whether Luther’s schism was justified.
That men sin does not impact the charism of the Church or her deposit of faith.
Of course Lefevre had specific issues with the Vat 2 documents—the same three points that the SSPX has always raised with Rome.
Please note: the author is not a theologian or canon lawyer. He in no way speaks for the Church nor does he have the qualifications to do so. Publication of this article is irresponsible on the part of CWR.
There’s a lot of this going around. But it’s consistent with the lay Dominicans that I know.
It could also be argued that the Pope is deficit in those Gifts of the Holy Spirit which would enable him to better know and understand the nature of the Catholic Church which he attempts governs.
“Opinions expressed in articles for Catholic World Report are the authors’ alone, and do not necessarily represent the positions of other contributors or of Ignatius Press.” ~CWR Home Page
Fr. Scott —
I am likewise neither of those things you mention.
But I do know the ad hominem fallacy when I see it.
Respectfully, b.
Thank-you for your response, Father. I, too, am surprised CWR published this article.
With respect Father, an appeal to credentials is not a response. Deal with his arguments…not his CV.
It certainly is a question of credentials when the issue is a legal one, such as the status of the SSPX as schismatic or not. If you were accused of a crime, would you prefer to be defended in court by an accountant? Would you not protest being indicted and prosecuted by a postal worker?
But accountants and postal workers (and others) would make up the jury to convict or acquit you.
That is true of most SSPX apologists as well.
Here is an idea. How are his specific arguments wrong? Answers those and I might take ye seriously.
Here is an idea Father. Answer his specific arguments. If the man is such a scrub, it should nor be ‘ard fur ye to make short work of ’em. OTOH maybe his arguments are airtight and this is all ye got Father?
Which is it?
BTW Father Bailey
The follow who wrote this article below has a Masters in Divinity and a Masters in theology and is a 3rd order Franciscan. Does his opinion count?
SSPX SCHISM TURNS HERETICAL
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/sspx-schism-turns-heretical
Yikes!
Fr. Scott Bailey, While the author did disclose his personal reasons for having left SSPX, he also painstakingly listed Church documents to back up the fact that the society has broken away from the Church. The list is at the bottom of the article, if you missed it. Read especially Pope Benedict XVI’s letter to the Bishops that not only condemns antisemitism but also makes clear the dogmatic reasons why SSPX has no canonical status within the Church. The article is not just a personal thing with the author, it’s a solid, objective exposition of why SSPX is no different from sedevacantists who claim to recognize the papacy but in actuality, they don’t. The Church documents he listed give his arguments various degrees of infallibility.
That does not matter. What matters is whether his arguments are correct or not. Are they? Correct or not? If not, give specifics.
1.If the Boston Heresy Case refers to the heresy of Fr. Leonard Feeney ( as the Boston secular media suggested) then Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition but 2.if it refers to the heresy of Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Richard Cushing,the archbishop of Boston, then Vatican Council II is not a break with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition. This has a bearing on the SSPX being in schism or not.
There are two paths.
The Church chose the wrong path.It chose the wrong option. It chose to interpret Vatican Council II etc with the False Premise of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. This was the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII. All the popes since then have chosen the wrong path.
There is the irrational interpretation of the cardinals and bishops and my rational interpretation.There is the irrational interpretation of the SSPX and sedevacantist bishops and my rational interpretation.They can choose to re-interpret Vatican Council II rationally, with the rational premise and then there will be a continuity with Tradition and no schism- of the popes.
The German bishops chose the irrational interpretation but now they can choose the rational interpretation.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican chose the irrational option but now they can re-interpret Magisterial Documents rationally. They have a choice. It is the only ethical option, which is possible.
It was Pope Pius XII who was in heresy. He confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). He approved the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office which made this mistake. He brought in a New Theology which said outside the Church there is KNOWN SALVATION IN THE PRESENT TIMES. So doctrine on exclusive salvation was made obsolete.
The result : from Pope Paul to Francis, invisible cases of Lumen Gentium 14 ( baptism of desire) and Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) were projected as visible exceptions for the traditional EENS, the Athanasius Creed , the Syllabus of Errors ( ecumenism of return), Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q, 27Q- outside the Church no salvation), the Council of Florence 1442 ( extra ecclesiam nulla slaus ) etc.This is interpreting Church Documents with the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII. – Lionel Andrades
I detect a consensus in the comments here. As an aside, I wonder why the odd expression “thrown down the glove” is used. Is this because the word gauntlet is no longer commonly used? But then, the act of throwing down the gauntlet as a challenge to single combat isn’t well known anyway. This doesn’t matter I guess, it just disrupts the flow of reading.
The phrase is usually “throw down the gauntlet,” but the variation/phrase “throw down the glove” has been around for quite a while (it appears in the 1913 edition of Webster’s). But, yes, it’s not well known anymore. Along with about 98% of the dictionary.
SSPX and other Traditional based societies are the future of the Roman Catholic Church after the modern church implodes on same sex marriage and female ordination.
They apparently already are in France, where a number o dioceses have no seminarians currently preparing for the priesthood.
I think demographically speaking you’re right. I really pray nothing implodes but traditionally minded Catholics including those in the Eastern Rites are the ones providing the most children for the next generation. Catholics who check off that religion box for surveys but live for the world’s values have the same tanking marriage & birthrates as everyone else in the culture. Which is quite sad because it didn’t used to be the case.
I was reading recently in a hometown weekly newspaper that there were so few young women in the entire county that they couldn’t put on a festival pageant this year. They’ve already consolidated the one remaining elementary school into the same building with the high school. And the median of county residents has risen to 59. That’s unlikely to be the case in US counties with SSPX communities. Or with Catholic communities that actually uphold Church teaching on marriage & family. Demography really is destiny, but we have to be careful not to take that too much for granted because children require community also if we’re to retain them in the faith.
But for the action of Archbishop Lefebvre, we are highly unlikely to have access to the traditional Latin Mass today. The author doesn’t seem to have considered the question of how to act, what can we do, when faced with a crisis of authority in the Church. Does he think St Athanasius was wrong to point out in the 4th century that “They have the churches, we have the Faith”?
If you don’t mind, I’d like to correct your use of the Protestant-coined name for the Church, which is not “Roman Catholic” but simply “Catholic”… This link leads to a concise but historically accurate article on the subject.
https://catholictruthscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/How-Did-the-Catholic-Church-Get-Her-Name.pdf
“But for the action of Archbishop Lefebvre, we are highly unlikely to have access to the traditional Latin Mass today.”
Exactly. That was the whole point for Vatican II. Tradition was to continue on with Mass in the vernacular. If Lefebvre hadn’t done what he did, maybe our parishes would be full of the Catholics we lost to SSPX and other TLM groups and we could have a united front against the problems facing us in the Church.
Really? That’s what you think? It was Lefebvre that emptied your NO parishes? Wow! He was one busy chap! Abp. Lefebvre actions were in REACTION to the chaos that followed VII. The destruction of the TLM was the POINT of the council. We’ll, you got it – good and hard. Hows that working out for you?
TLM Catholics are but 1% or 2% of identified Catholics in the US. And we ARE presenting a front against the problems facing the church – a front that is nonexistant in most NO parishes. And the ONLY reason there is a front at all – the only reason you have us at ALL is due to the actions of Abp. Lefebvre. So, if you want to battle for the Church’s soul – and your own – find a TLM parish and join the fight!
The pre-Vatican II Church was already in decline before the Mass was changed. People didnt leave the Church in droves when the new Mass was rolled out. There was no “chaos.” Most of the TLM goers today don’t remember the old Mass. They go now because it was marketed to them as being conservative, big-family friendly, and free of errors and liturgical abuses. But guess what? Catholics pre-Vatican II put up with those very same problems in their churches. They didn’t blame the Church nor the Council. So if there’s no TLM those folks wouldn’t be attending Mass anywhere? That seems to be a very consumerist attitude. We go to Mass to GIVE God the worship he deserves, not to GET something out of it.
Karson,
Please offer some evidence for your claims. Who marketed the TLM as “conservative”? What defines “conservative”?
You say, “Catholics pre-Vatican II….didn’t blame the Church nor the Council.” Dear lad. How could Catholics blame something which hadn’t yet come to pass? Dear lad.
If the kiss of peace at the NO Mass gives worship to God, how? How is hand-shaking, back-slapping, or kissing another person a worship of God?
With what Mass in the vernacular? There are as many variations of the NO as there are Protestant denominations.
It is part of the goodness of God to allow evil in order to bring good out of it. If Lefebvre’s schismatic disobedience “gave us the Latin Mass” due note Pope Francis is taking it away (he shouldn’t but sadly he can). If Lefebvre endured a white martyrdom at the hands of Pope St Paul VI with heroic obedience instead of being a schismatic then today the TLM could have been the dominate rite as God rewards obedience. Ask Padre Pio.
But he dinnae. So here we are…
>Does he think St Athanasius was wrong to point out in the 4th century that “They have the churches, we have the Faith”?
I am sure the Wee Free’s and the Kirk cite Athanasius a lot but context is important.
Objectively a schismatic Church with valid bishops is still objectively a Church. Unlike the wee orangemen who have no orders or sacraments beyond 2. But it is illicit and doesn’t have Catholic Faith by virtue of it being schismatic.
Like a divorced man and woman in an invalid marriage with children. Objectively they are a natural family though illicitly created unlike let us say a gay “family”.
The Fathers of the Church with one voice say there is no excuse for Schism even upon the admission the Church is now being ruled by wicked and sinful men.
I don’t pretend to ken what the real solution is but the false one is obvious.
Karson said it all better than I could have.
How by describing religion as a consumer product?
Dear Patricia,
Thank you for pointing out the difference between “Catholic” and “Roman Catholic”. The faithful of the 23 Eastern Catholic Churches agree with you. We are Catholic too !
O Holy Father Athanasius, pray to God for us sinners!
“But for the action of Archbishop Lefebvre, we are highly unlikely to have access to the traditional Latin Mass today”.
Historically inaccurate.
4 years prior to the illegal act of consecration performed by Lefebvre – an act which resulted in his automatic excommunication, a result of which he was aware and a state in which he died unrepentant – Pope St. John Paul II authorized the TLM to be offered with the approval of the local bishop. Within a week after Lefebvre’s act of rebellion against God’s anointed, in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, His Holiness expanded this earlier permission: “By virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree … (that) a wide and generous application” be given the previous directives.
Deacon Lou, yes, the so-called “indult” Masses. The SSPX poo-pooed them because they were -gasp- controlled by the local Bishop.
Excommunication never was the penalty for consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate. Thus, Lefebvre could not have incurred a latae sententiae excommunication, and John Paul II acted illegally by imposing excommunication.
Patricia,
It has happened before. A long time ago, a group of bishops from the Netherlands broke away from the Church because they did not agree with the proceedings and results of Vatican I (Vatican One.) They formed what is called the “Old Catholic Church” and preserved the Tridentine liturgy so their followers would have access to it.
Of course, over the years, their liturgy has been corrupted, as is likely to happen when you jumped ship and stayed away from Mother Church for a long time.
My point is, Abp. Lefebvre was not the first to provide people access to the Vetus Ordo while he and his followers jumped ship.
At times this important topic/debate seems like just another version of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”…but alas there are important technicalities involved and so “getting into the weeds” is necessary. However, the combox will not suffice here in response to the lengthy article, so I hope that Carl is already seeking or has found a solid individual to provide a rebuttal piece to the thoughtful article and arguments of Mr. Bartel. As a sincere recommendation, I nominate Father John Zuhlsdorf to directly address the points raised by Mr. Bartel. However, Father Z may be unwilling to do this since he has written a few times on this topic and has indicated no interest in further doing so, but perhaps the challenge provided by Mr. Bartel will be considered sufficiently unique to stimulate a response by Father Z not only in his blog but perhaps in the pages of CWR as well (separate response or a copy of what he might set forth in his blog in response).
But a few observations on Mr. Bartel’s article: Indeed much of it is quite compelling, but there are a handful of conclusions stated definitively by Mr. Bartel that I believe can be challenged because the conclusions reached by Mr. Bartel and the support he provides for them are not as definitive as he claims them to be. One example: Mr. Bartel states the following:
“Nota Bene: There are only three ways not to be in full communion with the Church: heresy, apostasy, and schism.9”
The footnote reference is to section 817 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2d ed) which reads as follows:
“817 In fact, ‘in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.’ The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body – here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism – do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.”
Contrary to what Mr. Bartel insists upon, the Catechism singles out the sins of heresy, apostasy, and schism as being the most divisive, but NOWHERE does it state as Mr. Bartel claims is the case that such are the ONLY ways to not be in full communion with the Church. Moreover, the second paragraph from section 817 mentions “divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes.”
Next, I am not so sure about the motivation and scholarship of flip-flopping John Salza who was once an advocate for the SSPX, now against it, but many of his former arguments in favor of the SSPX still stand as substantive rebuttals to some of his more recent arguments against the SSPX. See One Peter Five article “John Salza Replies to John Salza” (July 30, 2022).
Mr. Bartel’s final paragraph reads as follows:
“Let us therefore hold to account all complicit clergy who are soft on sin, no matter how genuine they might seem or how beautiful their liturgies. The laity have a responsibility to avoid enabling abusers of any kind; we cannot fall asleep again. This is not ‘narrow’ or ‘legalistic’, this is the apostolic nature of the Church as Christ our Lord constituted it. We join our voices with the great abbot and Benedictine reformer, Dom Prosper Gueranger: ‘We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. They must be aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors.’”
-DV Comment: Today, are there any more complicit clergy soft on sin than many liberal bishops and the Bishop of Rome himself? I sure hope Mr. Bartel also holds all of them to account.
Next, I find it somewhat peculiar that Mr. Bartel singles out and insists that the laity has the responsibility to avoid enabling abusers of any kind, and that they must not fall asleep again. Indeed the laity does have such a responsibility but the greater responsibility by far rests with the clergy, once again including the Pope and many bishops. Was it only the laity who fell asleep as Mr. Bartel declares? And how does one actually fall asleep regarding anything if one is not made aware of such and has no reason to suspect such due to cleverly disguised cover-ups?
Lastly, in quoting Dom Prosper Gueranger, note once again the last statement by the abbott: “If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. They must be aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors.”
At least in terms of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the Bishop of Rome has sent the priests of the SSPX as ministers of Christ. As such, they are to be received with obedience in this respect, but it sure looks like Mr. Bartel favors treating the priests of the SSPX as aliens of the Church. If so, he is declaring that all who go to confession to an SSPX priest are going to confession to aliens of the Church despite the Pope sending the SSPX priests to hear confessions and provide absolution.
Before closing out this combox contribution, please note that I am not a member of the SSPX, nor do I attend SSPX masses, but like all good-hearted Catholics, I take a similar approach to that of the good Bishop Athanasius Schneider by hoping and praying for full reconciliation as soon as possible so that the SSPX can go beyond the incomplete/irregular communion they have now and soon enjoy full communion with Rome. More work by the SSPX remains to be done.
__
For those honest and fair-minded people who want to look more deeply into the SSPX situation and arguments in opposition to the position of Mr. Bartel, I urge you to carefully and honestly read the following articles:
A. Insights and comments by Bishop Athanasius Schneider (see Life Site News: March 8, 2022):
B. “Ask Father: What’s the Truth about the SSPX?” (see Fr. Z’s blog: April 16, 2020)
C. “Letter from Rev. Dr. Denzil Meuli, S.T.D., U.J.D., Ph.L., LL.B., Advocate for the Holy Roman Rota. “A Compelling Defense of the SSPX” (see The Catholic Monitor. December 3, 2022). ***
D. “When is it Okay to Go to an SSPX Mass?” (see Cathy Caridi’s Canon Law Made Easy: September 16, 2021)
–Also see the following YouTube Video: “The SSPX is NOT in schism or schismatic. Here’s why.” (See the Kennedy Report: February 12, 2023)
***This letter by Reverend Dr. Denzil Meuli (a recognized super canon lawyer who died just a few years ago), is fascinating in part because he points out that Pope John Paul II was ill-served by his canon lawyers regarding the SSPX case, and as such he applied wrong parts of the canon law to wrongly find the SSPX guilty of schism when a different penalty was more appropriate based on what the SSPX actually did. Meuli does point out that a finding of schism was possible under that part of canon law that the Pope was actually obligated to use under the circumstances, but such would not be applicable to the SSPX situation, again based on what it actually did, and so a lesser penalty was appropriate under canon law. This should be taken very seriously into consideration when people like Mr. Bartel cite the action of Pope John Paul II that was itself a violation of canon law. Meuli offered to discuss his conclusions and rationale with anyone who cared to challenge him, but it appears that nobody wanted to match wits, at least in public, with the redoubtable Reverend Dr. Meuli over a roughly 20-year period of time that they could have done so.
Just a bit more on this by way of an example: Imagine you are accused of X wrongdoing, and based on the nature of what you did, your alleged crime falls under law ABC with possibile penalties 1 and 2. However, the judge in the case, relying on his crack law clerks’ opinions, wrongly tries you under law DEF with 1 penalty. You are found guilty by the judge of committing a specific crime you actually did not commit and the penalty imposed was unjust. Had you been properly charged under law ABC, penalty 2 was the same as the one penalty under DEF, but based on what you actually did, only penalty 1 that is lesser than penalty 2 was the just result. In essence, this is what happened to the SSPX and the wrongful judgment of Pope John Paul II influenced many others to come to the same conclusion and perpetuate the claim that the SSPX is and remains in schism.
Thank you, DocVerit, for the coherent explanation and worthy citations.
Thanks, meiron. I hope you have already enjoyed the insights provided by the cited sources of serious scholarship regarding this matter.
Yes. I’d previously read Cardini but didn’t know of Fr. Dr. Meuli until you told us. His view is enlightening. I also listened to Bp. Athanasius’s recent speech to the Confraternity, discussing matters of sacred Tradition, “order” of tradition, disobedience to abuse of authority, etc. All solid.
With much Lenten prayer for the conversion of the pope and wayward bishops, with gratitude for truth and sound teaching,
Thank you for your comment, DocVerit. Trying to poke holes in my argument is not enough, however. For example, you call into question whether or not there are only three ways of not being a member of the Church, but you provide no evidence to the contrary (also, my reference to the Catechism was primarily contextual, not evidentiary). But if you are interested, the Church defines who is a member of the Church in Canon 205: “Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.” Fr. Joseph Fenton clarifies how these bonds can be broken in “Questions about Membership in the Church”: “The term ‘member of the Church’ can legitimately be applied only to those baptized persons who have not frustrated the force of their baptismal characters by public heresy or apostasy, or by schism, and who have not been expelled from the Church by competent ecclesiastical authority.”[1] I chose not to include this last one because many if not most excommunications do not result in loss of membership,[2] and therefore there are only three certain ways. Exceptions do not disprove the rule.
The articles you reference are not authoritative; they are the speculations of scholars and media gurus. What matters is what the Popes have determined, not whether a canon lawyer or blogger priest thinks they are wrong or have misapplied canon law. There are a greater number of canon lawyers and esteemed prelates who concur with Pope John Paul II’s judgement; he consulted with many before issuing his decrees. My central thesis is that the SSPX has not been reconciled with the Pope and the Church since at least 1988, at that the last definitive statement by a pope (Francis) on the SSPX clearly indicates they are not in communion with the Church (Misericordia et Misera). Neither Bishop Schneider nor you should be sympathetic to their illicit and sacrilegious ministries, any more than you would be condone a clown mass or an inflatable air mattress altar in the ocean. Sin is sin, whether it looks clean or dirty.
If you wish to convince me otherwise, give me just one papal document issued between 1988-2023 reconciling the SSPX and giving them the right to exercise their ministry in the Church, like you can find for the FSSP. Just one. It should be easy to find, it would have been all over the news.
[1] https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1357
[2] https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/11/20/excommunicated-catholics-are-still-catholic/
You now call a bishop a ‘media guru’ but you aren’t referring to Bishop Barron?
A. Bartel: Your ramblings (including things that nobody disputes but you feel the need to post them) have been answered along with a corrective to your flawed understanding of Misericordia et misera in a recent response to Timothy Williams that will hopefully soon be posted by CWR so you and others can see how you continue to maintain a false conclusion based on your most decidedly non-authoritative and incorrect application of authoritative materials.
And remember the old adage: be careful what you wish for, as you just might get it…only not as you expect it to be.
Those who feel affinity with the cause of the SSPX ignore the fact that it is riddled with anti-Semitism (many of its members give credence to the forged Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion), supports political authoritarianism and disseminates dangerous conspiracy theories. Moreover it is marred by in-fighting and crippled by isolationism. In fact it might be suggested that it serves as a microcosm of what might have been had the Second Vatican Council never taken place. We might have had a myopic Church incapable of reaching out to the world and – like the SSPX – expecting the world to come on bended knee.
Not a few recent CWR comment box contributors seem troubled with anti Semitism also.
🙁
I don’t think that reflects on CWR nor the Catholic Church. It’s more about our universal broken human nature & the need for a scapegoat.
I’ve only known one SSPX family & not am no expert, but I wasn’t aware of antisemitism. They were just ordinary devout Catholics who were fed up with what today we’d call wokeism & they were seeking a parish where their children would be taught the Faith & receive the Sacraments in reverence. That seems fair enough.
I don’t know if we’d had a nearby SSPX church I wouldn’t have made a similar choice. It got so bad at one parish in the 1980’s I had to literally cover my child’s ears so they wouldn’t be scandalized by the homily.
I agree with you that antisemitism is a big problem in trad circles. As one Franciscan of the Immaculate put it, antisemitism is the “soft white underbelly” of the traditionalist movement. It’s disgusting and needs to be addressed.
I think the things that threaten the traditionalist movement are:
1. affinity for conspiracy theories that put many trads into a tailspin of fantasy and fuzzy/illogical thinking.
2. Antisemitism. Like all forms of racism, antisemitism is illogical and destructive.
3. Laxity in regard to abuse. The SSPX allegedly moves abusive priests about. They apparently have the old mindset that the priest/institution must be protected at all costs. So in that sense they are ‘traditional’.
The good people in the trad movement (and there are many) need to stand up to the crazies in their ranks.
Antisemitism is a big problem in leftwing circles, but it’s more cleverly disguised as anti-Zionism.
I hear weird conspiracy theories from almost every side these days. Traditional Catholics might circulate one variety, fallen away Catholics another. When you have competing narratives going on in any culture it’s tricky to keep a balance & not be deceived or manipulated.
And even the truth can be utilized to manipulate us depending on what is revealed, what is withheld, & by whom & for what purpose.
I’d venture that antisemitism is far more widespread among many on the secular left, whereas it’s confined to the cranky margins of a few traditionalists. On the left, it’s actually quite respectable, especially in the halls of elite universities, where pro-Israeli speakers routinely get shouted down or disinvited. Jewish students at Stanford in particular found out recently what an unfriendly situation they find themselves in.
Antisemitism is one of the reasons I detested Trads for most of my life. Till I started reading reasonable sober trads like Ed Feser or David Palm my opinion of them was very low. But now it is several orders of magnitude higher. Get rid of the fringe morons & schismatics and Trads could take over the Church. I would help them.
There are some odd folks in traditional circles it’s true. But again, it’s the same in other circles. Just differing forms of oddness. Every movement has its eccentrics.
Yes, I think that “fringe” is the key term here. On the left, on the other hand, antisemitism is actually quite respectable, and enjoys tenure in elite universities.
I have followed the SSPX for 40 years. I met Archbishop Lefebvre in person twice, and heard him speak many times. I have read every book he ever published, and a great many other books by SSPX priests, historians and sympathizers. I have personally known several SSPX priests rather well. Except from the expelled Bishop Williamson, I have never heard a single anti-semitic remark in any of this. However, for some people, any historical reference that is in any way critical of the Jews of Biblical times, or of Israel today, amounts to “anti-semitism.” Fairly ridiculous. As far as “laxity” towards abuse, I think the question is much more complicated than what the Church Militant investigation implied. But certainly, the SSPX is no better or worse than any other wing of the Church in addressing this scourge.
Yeh Williamson was denying the holocaust for years and the SSPX did nothing to him till Benedict lifted the Excommunications and Williamson’s views hit the newspapers. Then they cared. He has been preaching hate for decades.
The less said about Bob Sungenis the better.
>However, for some people, any historical reference that is in any way critical of the Jews of Biblical times, or of Israel today, amounts to “anti-semitism.” Fairly ridiculous.
Yeh that is like saying Chick Comics is just being critical of Roman Catholics in Biblical times or today…
You are in denial buddy big time IMHO with all due respect. Slandering Jews, the Talmud and Judaism as a religion is Radtrad golf. I can literally find hundreds of Jew Bashing trads on twitter. Not all of them are Sedes. There are more than a few “regular” ones as well.
It is a problem. Not facing the problems in Traditionalism is one of its great weaknesses.
Listen to a Trad Priest on the problems in Traditionalism.
https://www.tumblarhouse.com/blogs/news/problems-in-the-traditional-catholic-movement
Peace.
“You are in denial buddy big time IMHO with all due respect. Slandering Jews, the Talmud and Judaism as a religion is Radtrad golf….”
Are you a Jew or Jewish convert, Jim the Scot? Was St. Paul slandering Jews when he wrote they killed Christ, are enemies to us all and God’s wrath has come upon them until the end? Was St. John an anti-Semite when he called them the synagogue of satan? The only slandering going on here is false accusations being made against the TLM community.
Steven D?
Yer asking a man called “Jim the Scott” if he is a Jew? Seriously? So if a man posted as Luigi the Italian ye would ask with a straight face wither or not he was a Bulgarian? In my experience only antisemites ask such questions cause they are paranoid yobs who believe in conspiracy theories about the Jews. Are ye one of them buddy?
As for yer proof texting you sound like a wee Free Church Protestant citing “Call no Man Father” to justify condemning us for calling Priests & the Pope by their proper titles.
Vatican II taught only the Pharisees and the High Priest and the Jewish mob who called for his blood killed Christ. Not all Jews then living nor any living today. Outside of the general fact the sins of all human beings crucified Christ.
Those verses ye cite have to be read threw that lens.
BTW Steve D are ye Chinese? Just asking…
Jim the Scott, you commit the error Nostra Aetate 4 said you must not -: ‘as if such views followed from Holy Scripture.’
Also I see that Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh of very mixed heritage and a sparkling Scots accent that has your writing sounding dull.
https://www.rt.com/shows/alex-salmond-show/550348-centre-left-uk-politics/
“Bishop” Williamson was, for many years, head of the SSPX’s seminary in Connecticut and then in Minnesota after they relocated. He was responsible for the formation of all their priests and was definitely anti-semitic, as was his cohort Fr. Angles at the helm of the SSPX school in St. Mary’s, KS. Both were instrumental in spreading hatred for the New Mass, the Pope, and Vatican II throughout the organization, and in no small part contributed to the faction we have today in rad trad circles.
Totally meaningless accusations do not become meaningful even in groups of three: “anti-semitism,” “political authoritarianism,” “dangerous conspiracy theories.”
Dear Briney,
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, there are 3 offenses against “peace” (which is the tranquility of order) in the church: schism, heresy and unbelief. He further suggests that one can appreciate the gravity of a schism by determining to what degree it leads to heresy and then unbelief. He is very clear that unbelief is a far worse offense than schism since the object of unbelief is God Himself. So, while schism and heresy are offenses against peace in the church, they pale in comparison to unbelief which is an offense against God. That said, consider the following: 99% of those that attend the TLM hold the basic fundamental Truth that Christ is present in the consecrated host, body, blood, soul and divinity. In contrast to this, of those that attend the NO Missae only 30% (with some estimates as low as 7%) believe in the Real Presence. Again, while 96% of those that attend the TLM believe abortion and contraception are morally evil only 54% of those that attend the NO Missae think similarly. While 96% of those that attend the TLM hold gay marriage is morally evil, again, a little over half of those that attend the NO Missae hold the same position. They say, history will judge not the “schism” of AB Lefebvre. At 50+ years out now, we can say with some degree of certainty that it must have been a very strange “schism” indeed that has led TO belief and AWAY from heresy and AWAY from unbelief. As a further note, writers such as Michael Davies, Peter Kwasniewski, Taylor Marshall, Dom Alcuin Reid among others have warned that the Truths underlying the exterior acts found in the old rite have either been strategically repressed, removed or denigrated in the NO Missae such that one can argue with some assurance that the Modernist take over of the church at V2 has itself become that which is now “cut off” and potentially schismatic. I hold my breath for the NO Church, the “Modernist” church when I hear Cardinal McElroy, a recent appointee of Pope Francis utter things like “the synod gives us liberals an opportunity to finish the revolution in the church that we began at Vatican II”. I shutter at all the “aggiornamento” that still awaits completion and how it will be imposed on the NO faithful. I wonder if the NO Faithful will give thought to the fact that if they don’t embrace all these objectionable changes they’ll become the new “divisive” or “rigid”, perhaps even “schismatic” themselves. God Bless you for a holy Lent and God help the church!
Friend Mark,
Thank you for your response.
You’ll recall that when Martin Luther left the Church, he pointed to a number of abuses that were taking place. And it’s true that the Church has been riddled with corruption and sin often in ages past.
I have no trouble stipulating that his new Lutheran church probably did avoid at least some of those abuses. Perhaps many of them.
So, did that mean Luther was justified in taking leave of the Church Jesus founded?
Clearly, St. Paul wouldn’t say so. To him, the unity of the faith is of the utmost importance:
“Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment…” (1 Cor. 1:10).
Now, you have listed a number of serious matters, problems the Church is facing today.
But you have not demonstrated the causal connection between Vatican II — or any other Church teaching or directive — and those problems.
St. Paul pleads with us to stay united within the Mystical Body of Christ Jesus. I would say we owe it to our Church — and to Jesus whose Body she is — to protect her from those who work to undermine or even destroy her.
I join you in your prayer asking God to help the Church.
And I think that we ought to pitch in and do our part as well.
God’s blessings on you and your family in this holy time!
Yes, The Church is the Bride of Christ and the Mystical Body of Christ. Where the mystical body of our Incarnate God begins and ends is in mystery. Christ is the Head of the Body while Peter’s successor is only Christ’s vicar.
Ratzinger, in “Called to Communion,” declared that ‘the principle of tradition in its sacramental form – apostolic succession – played a constitutive role in the existence and continuance of the Church.’ (p. 71)
By EXTENSION, if the principle of tradition in its sacramental form OF THE MASS plays a constitutive role in the existence and continuance of the Church, how is it other than contradictory when a pope suppresses or abrogates traditional forms of worship?
When Christ’s Vicar permits, encourages, promulgates or abrogates forms of worship other than that decided and agreed at ecumenical council (Sacrosanctum Concilium), he causes a divisive wound. Wounds give rise to scabrous lumps, or they result in non-healing tissue. Medline plus informs: “Wounds heal in stages. The smaller the wound, the quicker it will heal. The larger or deeper the wound, the longer it takes to heal.” Here we are, 60 plus some later.
Jesus said that his followers would worship him in spirit and in truth. Where is the truth of congruence, where is the unity between Sacrosanctum Concilium, abrogation of the Old Mass, and promulgation of the New?
Ratzinger/Benedict was a pastoral leader. See his 1988 pastoral letter to the Chilean bishops re SSPX status and his efforts to heal and unify. He himself, as representative of the Church, took on fault. See what Francis/Bergogolio does to the rights of bishops regarding forms of worship in their dioceses.
Dear Brother Briney,
Thank you for your response and your obvious love of the church; one clearly suffering an identity crisis at this unprecedented time in history. I respectfully object to your suggestion that V2 had little, if anything, to do with the current state of unbelief in the NO Church. No other change within the church suggests a plausible cause. Removal of the communion rail, destruction of the high altar, the placement of a Cramner table, mass in the vernacular, mass facing the people, absence of Gregorian chant, communion on the hand while standing, communion disbursed by lay people with unconsecrated hands, clown masses, balloon masses, masses with naked interpretive dancers, masses by priests in swim pools, masses with priests on roller skates – – – all these denigrate with real effect the reality of the True Presence of Christ in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. When Jesus is handed out like a carnival ride ticket, I can’t help but think that Catholics, just like the protestants are not receiving the real and true presence of Christ Himself, but, merely a memorial “token”. I have been at mass in NO churches were Our Lord’s precious body is received and fractured in the pews by parents who then disburse to their pre-communion age children, I have found hosts in hymnals, storage compartments on the backs of pews, on the floor. None of these abuses occur where Our Lord is received while kneeling and on the tongue. These abuses do not occur at the TLM. That alone is enough to satisfy my desire to surround myself with like-minded Catholics whose sole purpose in this life is to fulfill our basic mission: to love, serve and adore Our Lord. It is no wonder why Our Blessed Mother at LaSalette wept bitterly when confiding in Melanie that the “body of her precious son would soon be trampled by filthy feet.” I cannot participate in a mass that lends itself so easily to abuses against the omnipotent humility and omnipotent vulnerability of the body of Our Lord. I cannot now in good conscience set foot in a NO sanctuary where I run the risk of being one of those Our Blessed Mother feared would trample the precious body of her divine son. Be assured of my prayers for you and your loved ones!
Friend Mark —
You mention a number of issues that face the Church. And I daresay that you and I are in agreement on them all.
What we do not agree on is your statement that those problems were caused by Vatican II.
The fact that Vatican II seems to have coincided with the breakdown of traditions and norms within the Church is not proof of causation.
Or would you say that Vatican II caused America’s involvement in the Vietnam War? President Kennedy’s assassination? The sexual revolution?
I would urge you to recall that the sixties was the decade during which leftism was mainstreamed in America, and therefore in the world. And leftism is by far the most destructive force ever to beset humanity.
It’s my opinion that leftism — and not Vatican II — that is responsible for the problems you cite in the Church.
If you read the documents of Vatican II, which are nothing short of illuminating and inspiring, you might agree with me. Nowhere in those documents does it mention replacing Gregorian chant with Protestant hymns. Or removing altar rails. Or ceasing to celebrate Latin Masses.
I likewise salute you for your love and concern for the Church.
But, as I’ve stated before on this site, I have great regard for the second Vatican Council. In fact, reading the conciliar documents in the early seventies saved my faith.
Please, if you have evidence that the Church’s problems arose because of Vatican II, produce it.
If not, then I respectfully submit you should not be making the claim.
Your brother in Christ, b.
Briney,
I’m going to push the point that the Church, at VCII and in its documents, said one (many) thing(s). The Church and its popes and bishops THEN, often and overwhelmingly and brazenly, proceeded to distort what the Council itself said in its documents. This, to the detriment of the pious faithful.
The language of the documents is nebulous and ambiguous. No new dogma was decreed. Doctrine was updated which allowed the new theology to stretch and misconstrue and mislead what the traditional faith had taken to be immutabilities.
THAT is the problem which CAUSED the EFFECT of confusion, dismay, and schism. One followed the other. One led to the other.
The world is a spiritual (as well as physical) cosmos. One sin leads to a darkening of our world throughout. Adam’s sin is passed down. Our personal sins affect us, our belief, our future actions. Our sins affect those intimately close to us, our generations, and our sin affects the Body of Christ. Our sins affect the world, the cosmos.
To counter the effects of sin, God gives us light, the communion of saints, the Church Treasury of grace and merit from which we may draw, but sin is sin for which each man will still in time be held to account.
[If there are ten righteous men, will God save the city? If there are only two, will God save the City?] Ratzinger, in his book “The Light of the World” talks about diminishing effects of the loss of faith in the world. He discusses faith as a protective zone in contrast to the ‘rampant brokenness’ around us. Christendom has died while Christ lives. The Church is a boat, seriously listing. Christ alone saves. How can VCII? It is ambiguous, and too many ‘in the Church’ have misled others in the Church. VCII may have helped you, but I could tell you names of thousands who were
and continue to be misled by the ambiguous words in VCII and its misuse by leaders of the Church. Bergoglio was not around but Paul VI was, and JPII was not without error either, specifically at inter-religious prayer of Asissi. We cannot put our trust in popes; they are infallible only in very circumscribed instances. They are only signs of unity; they may misuse authority, and they are men without and sometimes full of sin. We cannot put trust in VCII in its general pie-in-sky writing of cloudy documents. We can trust only God, our faith, our well-formed consciences, and we find Christ where He makes Himself known.
“The language of the documents is nebulous and ambiguous.”
That’s a very broad statement, and certainly problematic as such.
There are many, many clear and direct statements from the Council (re: liturgy, morals, Christ, salvation, the Church) that are as clear as day–and they continue to be ignored by huge swaths of Catholics.
Which indicates that even if there are some unclear passages in the VII documents (and considering that there are 16 documents, etc), that is a small part of a much, much bigger problem.
Thank you, Carl, for allowing me an edit to say: There is some ambiguous and nebulous language in VCII documents.
I think we would agree that there is direct, distinct and unambiguous language in some VCII documents; e,g,, Sacrosanctum Concilium. Need I say more?
I would point more to Gaudium et Spes, which has some verbose moments (it also has a powerful section on marriage, family, sexuality).
SC does not seem ambiguous to me; rather, it leaves a number of things to be decided later by commissions/to be decided by local ordinaries, etc.
Can you give some examples from SC?
Two more notes:
1) In regard to popes, I said that they were “men without…sin.” Obviously they are men WITH sin.
2) Much of Lumen Gentium lends itself to myriad interpretations.
a) Paragraph 8: “…the Council, relying on the inspiration of Christ, …proposes to speak to all men in order to unfold the mystery that is man and cooperate in tackling the main problems facing the world today.”
The Church’s pope in 2020 helped mankind tackle his pandemic problem by locking the doors of its churches and requiring employees/visitors to Vatican offices to provide proof of having been vaccinated by an experimental vaccine. Said vaccine development and/or testing used tissue lines from an aborted fetus, and said vaccine later was proven ineffective at innoculation.
b) Who are the ‘people of God’ mentioned in LG?
c) LG, Paragraph 41: “The Church…realizes that man is continually being aroused by the Spirit of God and that he will never be utterly indifferent to religion….
Because God wills all religions, according to the pope.
d) LG, paragraph 41: “In virtue of the Gospel entrusted to it the Church proclaims the rights of man: she acknowledges and holds in high esteem the dynamic approach of today which is fostering these rights all over the world.”
The right to marriage. Let’s end with that.
Happy Laetare Sunday!
When the rigmarole around Traditiones Custodes began, CWR kindly ran Fr. Fessio’s article on discrepancies between what SC said and what became the NO. That is a good place to start. Fr. Fessio wrote with more knowledge, interest, and clarity than I.
The NO gave rise to the ‘liturgy wars’ and is one reason for the existence of SSPX today.
Carl, My apologies. The quotes are from Gaudium, not Gentium. My small Flannery paperback of VCII documents has too many frayed and loose pages stuck randomly throughout. Mea culpa my disorganized mess. I’m going to stop writing now, then go have a St. Patrick Day drink. Till next time.
Dear Briney,
Leftism is indeed a plague and it ruins everything it touches, church, education, government, humanity. Modernism is truly the compilation of all known heresies. Two decades before the Counsel was convened, there were a lot of liturgical revisionists that yearned to “update” the liturgy. Strategically, they envisioned V2 as the justification for the changes they yearned to implement. Many of these revisionists were Bishops, Arch-Bishops and Cardinals. Yves Chiron has a wonderful expose of the underlying modernist tensions preceding V2 in his book entitled: “Annibale Bugnini”. His expose is neither a condemnation or acceptance of V2 or the liturgical changes. He walks a rather razor thin line between the two. He leaves you to draw your own conclusions. Due to his scholarly study, I no longer see just V2 as the issue – it was a watershed moment no doubt; but, the momentum for desires to change the mass were occurring long before V2. Most of the changes that were implemented post V2 were not approved by the counsel fathers; but, part of an agenda the devisers of which met years prior to implement – even on the sly. In the NO Seminary I attended in Brighton, MA. for philosophy, we studied the documents of V2. Sadly, at the time, I had little exposure to the previous documents, e.g. the documents of the Counsel of Trent. I failed to see the differences that were being suggested. A comparison/contrast study would have been fruitful. A lot of that type of work has been done since and I have taken keen interest in studying as much as I can about the church, its (recent) history and the hopes and longings of all the various parties whose influence on the church have decided, in some fashion, the direction it has taken. All in all, as a father/husband and employer, I find that our experience of the TLM has worked as a late-life and intensely fruitful Conversion. I find my spirituality and the concomitant elements of the TLM harmonious. I love the silence, the emphasis on the holy Tabernacle, the great respect for the priesthood and much more have given me an insight to a deeper type of transcendence I now realize would be impossible for me to experience at the NO Missae. Let us pray that the LEFT does not dissemble what little residue remains of the tradition of the Catholic Church when the higher-ups implement the changes they anticipate as part of their mandate after “listening” vis-a-vis the Synod of Synodality. May God continue to guide you and yours in peace and charity! Be blessed!
The fascination on the part of SSPX members and followers with the supposedly glorious past reminds me of the Trumpist cry, “Make America great again!” In a similar vein traditionalists like the SSPX appeal to some age when the streets were paved with gold and champagne gushed out of fountains. Of course, the truth about golden ages is that they are never golden. And just as Republicans hail a mythical age so SSPX and traditionalists trumpet the praises of a glorious era of Catholicism before Vatican II.
Oh my goodness. It never fails that any comments thread, no matter what the original subject may be, always ends up with Trump at the bottom of it.
🙂
Whether he ever gets reelected or not, he will live on forever in the comments.
Trump really doesn’t need the hotels and such: he lives rent-free in the heads of a lot of people.
Absolutely true Mr.Olson.
🙂
That’s not true. SSPX priests often denounced things like “1950’s-ism”. Many SSPX priests don’t see the time before Vatican2 as a golden age. The rot has been growing in the Church for some time. I think the SSPX believes that adherence to Holy Tradition is the best way forward…not backward.
Your understanding of Republicans is extremely weak. Try shedding some of your bias as it’s affecting your judgment.
The SSPX members are rightly considered schismatics and therefore those attracted to them should be on guard for the salvation of their souls. The SSPX’s stance towards the Church’s Magisterium is very Protestant. Lefebvre’s and his followers’ private interpretation of acts of the Magisterium is no less uncatholic than the Protestants’ private interpretation of Scripture.
Alvin, I respectfully disagree that the SSPX are in schism as “schism”, rightly defined, leads to Heresy and UNbelief, neither of which can be said of the SSPX priests or the faithful that assist in their masses. In fact, just the opposite has occurred. This, so-called “schism” has actually LED the orthodoxy AND belief. JPII was very likely falsely instructed by canon lawyers who should have known what AB Lefebvre was engaging in was NOT schism. This article is worth considering for further clarification: https://gloria.tv/post/31QU96AVcDx63ubJLxLbdL4cN
Why did Benedict remit the excommunication Latae Sententiae without the society changing one thing? Because it never had legs to begin with. Lefebvre is covered by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, that consecration of bishops without papal approval must be proved to be ex-dolo. Malice was not in Lefebvre and definitely not for the Church. The new code of canon law heavily puts the emphasis on conscience. Lefebvre was clearly following his conscience in consecrating bishops without the approval of Rome.
Is the Chinese Communist Party Catholic Church in China in ‘full communion’ with Pope Francis after Pope Francis signed the agreement with them? I have heard the CCP has put up pictures of CCP leaders which have to be worshiped equal to Jesus. I have heard that the CCP is changing the Bible to worship CCP leaders as well. Wow!
How many more people with an “M.A. in Theology” or “working on a degree in philosophy” are we expected to read on these silly controversies? While the Novus Church sinks into heresy and apostasy, the traditional Latin Mass flourishes despite persecution. “By their fruits you shall know them.” “Saint” Paul VI, the Great Destroyer, or Marcel Lefebvre, the Apostle of Africa and the man who is personally responsible for saving the Latin Mass and for countless vocations. Easiest choice in the history of the Church.
Should CWR only publish pieces by PhDs? If so, I’d need to find another job. Anyhow, how this is this a “silly controversy”? Further, are there errors in Mr. Bartels’ essay? If so, point them out.
Found one Editor!
‘ No saint in history ever has ACTED or ever will act in such an abusive and destructive manner. ‘
Give me one example of a saint who committed an act of schism, heresy, or apostasy, and died unrepentant and unreconciled to the Pope and the Church as did Marcel Lefebvre.
Andrew Bartel, that is your thesis that you didn’t identify properly to begin with; and not having positioned it as you should have meant you couldn’t structure right thoughts into your case. Your case and outlay never developed. Now you would have other people argue out for you a thesis that still is not worth making for a number of reasons, viz.,
– there are such saints but that is not the gist of the issue
– you insert yourself to negatively and definitively replace a positive process already long underway
– why share it with you making a mess for SSPX and your own essay
– the positive process will also be determining the results for Lefebvre
– you persistently demonstrate a mind that won’t be impartial on the course.
Are you and your camp so driven in envy! What personal lessons Lefebvre holds for you all, might bring about your revolt and you will be entirely to blame for it.
Joan of Arc was charged with heresy, excommunicated, and was burned at the stake. I don’t believe she left an autobiography which contained her thoughts about the Church, but apparently her faith led her to seek and accomplish God’s will for her, including martyrdom. Sinful men INSIDE the Church helped her achieve her end, just like Judas helped Jesus.
St. Athanasius was excommunicated by a pope and banished from one or more dioceses. His arguments against Arianism never changed despite what that pope and the majority of other bishops believed and taught in opposition to Athanasius’ positions.
You lay down the condition that you will only accept a papal document as support for any position which differs from yours.
To insist that your conditions are the only ones susceptible to (your acceptable reason) is unreasonable by standards of logic and by standards of charity.
If your reason and your charity are without blemish, without imperfection, and are so impeccable, irreformable, and so objectively truthful, why did the CWR editors above disclaim “some of the language,” and “tone and content” of your article to be “problematic and contentious”?
Carl writes “Are there errors in Mr. Bartel’s essay? If so point them out.”
I believe there are a handful of errors in the essay, and my comment posted earlier today at 10:06 AM points out one obvious error in particular and strongly suggests another possible error to boot.
Nevertheless, as also set forth in my comment, and because of the length and depth of Mr. Bartel’s essay, I hope you will indeed seek out a serious person with sufficient credentials to write a rebuttal essay to Mr. Bartel’s essay. Please review my comment for my recommendation in this regard, and also check out the short list of scholarly articles I set forth that I believe will give you and others much food for thought regarding the status of the SSPX.
Omnia Vincit Veritas
It is a silly controversy because it has been “hashed” and rehashed ad infinitum by canon lawyers, and by bishops and archbishops and cardinals and popes. The evidence against this writer’s thesis has piled up to Mt. Everest proportions, year after year, but it makes no difference. Someone thinks they need to demonstrate “once and for all” that the faithful should avoid SSPX Masses because they are “schismatic.” If I had a number for him, I would tell this writer to phone Bishop Vitus Huonder, who received permission (in 2019) from the Pope to retire to an SSPX house in Switzerland specifically so that he could celebrate exclusively the TLM with these supposedly “schismatic” priests of the SSPX. I have lived in places in France and Switzerland where the ONLY priests available for ANY Mass are those of the SSPX, who are frequently called upon by the local bishops to handle funerals AND marriages. Pope Francis himself has specifically stated that SSPX confessions and marriages are valid, and that the bishops of the SSPX do NOT need the permission of local ordinaries to enter their dioceses and ordain priests for the SSPX. Is the Pope schismatic too? What is left to say? Are there some goofballs in the SSPX, some “loose canons” who will make outlandish comments from time to time. Yes, there are. But far fewer problem priests than in any American diocese, that’s for sure! Nothing – absolutely nothing – in the position or status of the SSPX amounts to schism.
Timothy J. Williams, I thought that comment was a sober, cool-minded, prudent, long-view, big picture evaluation of this matter. It it easy to get hot-blooded or micro-focused on minutiae pertaining to this subject (I have fallen into this habit often). Thanks.
Mr. Gus I was in a Church group where there there were activist lodge boys involved who would say the same “long-view not micro-manage” things in order to have their own ways about truncating the topics, meeting proceedings and minute taking; including killing pro-life developments.
Cold-blooded.
Further, your reply here to Williams is inconsistent on its own accounts with the circumstances of the SSPX matters, I see; and your approach would replace Bartel to entirety and carry your kind of conclusion.
I distinctly remember years ago an Italian bishop granting faculties to a priest of the SSPX to minister in one of his diocesan parishes. I don’t remember what year or the bishop, but it was a northern Italian diocese, as I recall. It was in the Catholic news at the time. There was a photo of the priest in the news article.
Dear Carl,
There are a number of profound issues and many “moving parts” to this problem; in a way, it is unprecedented as there has never been a time in church history where the entire upper echelon has failed to pass on what had been handed down to them. Sadly, I fear that the NO Church is one made in the image of man and no longer made in the image of God. Perhaps the most damning condemnation of the original “schism” is one given by a true scholar of Canon Law. His assessment of the “schism” can be found here: https://gloria.tv/post/31QU96AVcDx63ubJLxLbdL4cN
God bless you and your family with a fruitful Lenten Season!
Archbishop Augustine Di Noia wanted the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the Boston Heresy for canonical recognition
Archbishop Augustine di Noia op, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Vatican, along with the Dominicans, interprets Vatican Council II, in public, with the Boston Heresy. This is political. They know about this error in philosophy and theology. They officially teach it at the University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rome. It is a public mistake and is not magisterial. The Archbishop, the CDF and Pope Benedict wanted the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with this Boston Heresy, for canonical recognition.
Since the CDF was not willing to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and honestly, the CDF could not dialogue with the sedevacantists and invite them back into the Catholic Church.
For the Dominicans at the Angelicum and Archbishop Di Noia, the Nicene Creed now means, “ I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, they are the baptism of desire, baptism of blood, saved in invincible ignorance etc, and they exclude the baptism of water”, in this way the Dominicans can reject EENS as it was interpreted by St. Dominic. This is a requirement for teaching at the Angelicum and being enrolled there as a student.
Canonically any archbishop, rector or superior who changes the interpretation of the Creeds is automatically excommunicated. It is also obligatory, according to Canon Law, to affirm the dogma EENS, defined by three Church Councils. EENS is not contradicted by Vatican Council II, interpreted rationally. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to only hypothetical and invisible cases.
The Boston Heresy is interpreting invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
So there are two interpretation of Vatican Council II, one rational and the other irrational, one without the false premise and the other with the irrational premise. The popes and the CDF choose the irrational option. So this issue has to be settled before it can be said that the SSPX are in schism.
If the CDF interprets Vatican Council II rationally it will no more be in schism with the popes over the centuries on the Creeds, Catechisms etc.
The SSPX are not obliged to follow the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II and call this obedience.
– Lionel Andrades
A deluge of words and references worthy of an academic publication. I think CWR is doing a real service publishing this and similar articles that invite thought, discussion, criticism and debate.
It’s hard to be convinced the author is correct when a few grossly overdue words from the Vatican would settle the matter, such as, “Yes, they are in schism” or, “No, they are not.”
This is not a promotion of the sspx but people should also provide accurate information when addressing the issue versus oft repeated, dubious claims, such as that the sspx is in schism. A first warning sign that such opinions should be taken with a grain of salt is that someone is claiming a definitive, factual view on a very complex matter, for which a vatican commission of canonists, theologians, liturgists, existed for decades to grapple with. (I am a canonist myself.) It is thus also strange that no citation is made of the commission’s statements, a must for any discussion of the issue. Perhaps because they don’t support the contention of schism, but the opposite. It’s strange that over decades they never bothered to claim the sspx are in schism, not even indirectly, e.g. by claiming that certain of their sacraments are invalid, which they would be if they were schismatic. Multiple statements of the one-time head of the commission, Cardinal Hoyos, that they are not in schism, also then deserves much more weight than the opinion of other cardinals/bishops.
In regard to the issue of sacraments, the granting by the last two popes of what entails the power of governance/jurisdiction, among other things, indicates they simply cannot be in schism. It is non-sensical to claim that people can participate in the Church’s jurisdiction, such as being granted faculties or delegation, while being in schism. Aside from the ability to witness marriages and absolve, they have also previously been delegated the ability to do things like hold judgement over their own clerics vs. having the congregation for the faith do such, for matters the latter would otherwise handle. Some Latin/Roman Rite bishops have also been deputed to recognize groups/associations of the faithful, for example, started by the sspx. These actions presuppose some degree of communion, even a high one, among other things. To get around this, there are bizarre and false claims, by the likes of John Salza, that the sspx are like the eastern orthodox, as though the latter have something like faculties that come from the pope to make for their sacraments being valid; or that sspx priests are like laicized priests or those under forms of penalties, to explain how they can validly administer sacraments. As sspx priests can recieve faculties and delegations, they simply cannot be considered to be suspended a divinis.
The only statement of schism that people cite- the first, and then second decree on the excommunication by JPII in 1988- which excommunication was subsequently lifted in a separate act- was retracted in 2009. The author seems to miss the import that such decrees as the latter indicate the desire to achieve “full” communion- inferring they enjoyed some degree of communion already, while it did not say it was to bring an end to any alleged schism.
There are many other facets one could examine, e.g., when one looks carefully at what the recognition/grants for confession and marriage involve, they do not say these were hitherto invalid. Regarding confession, at least in Misericordia and misera, there is actually not even a faculty given and the word is not used, including in the editio typica- but there is simply recognition that their priests can absolve, and regardless of any kind of circumstances, e.g., emergencies: “sacerdotes Fraternitatis Sancti Pii X sacra celebrant, ut ibi valide liciteque suorum peccatorum absolutionem sacramentalem recipere possent.” It also explicitly states this is licit too. For marriages their priests can also work with regular diocesan priests regarding the preparation, etc, further indicating they are in some degree of communion.
If one wants to still maintain they are in schism and some other positions, one has to be prepared to resolve what would be the above contradictions, among other things. There are also logical fallacies in the piece, made possible by the question and answer format, whereby the author sets up the argument on his terms, and the claims he asserts people have about the sspx.
Chris:
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your most thoughtful and insightful comments regarding the status of the SSPX. To add a little bit more emphasis on what you rightly set forth regarding the fallacious comparison of the Eastern Orthodox to the SSPX presented by many, the key point you make about granting faculties is indeed crucial to understanding why the comparison that equates at least in part the Eastern Orthodox with the SSPX is completely unjust.
The REGULAR, FULL TIME, and Catholic Specific FACULTY to hear Confessions was granted to the Catholic priests of the SSPX by Pope Francis, and the grant of this specific kind of REGULAR, FULL TIME Faculty is SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT than what the Orthodox churches can practice ONLY during emergency situations regarding the ministering of various sacraments. Full time faculties cannot be granted to the Orthodox or any other body outside the Catholic Church. Either the proponents of the claim that “the Eastern Orthodox have the same faculties as the SSPX has” know this and are flat out lying about it, or they are remarkably obtuse and can’t discern the difference between an emergency use of a sacrament granted to all validly ordained priests even if suspended, in schism, laicized, and so on, and the COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GRANT OF A REGULAR, FULL TIME faculty to hear confessions that cannot be granted to fully schismatic priests without changing their status from fully schismatic to being in full communion or, as in this case, being “partially schismatic” or what is more accurately known as an irregular status not in full communion with Rome. Once more, such an irregular status IS NOT SIMPLY SCHISMATIC as people like Salza et al. continue to rage about.
In my comment of 3/15/2023 posted at 10:06 AM, among a handful of scholarly articles I recommend is one I believe you will particularly enjoy because it contains the extremely important canon law analysis by the highly touted super canon lawyer Rev. Dr. Denzil Meuli. Dr. Meuli clearly pointed out many years ago that Pope John Paul II applied a wrong part of the canon law to incorrectly apply the penalty of schism on the SSPX when a lesser penalty was more appropriate based on what the SSPX actually did, and because of this wrongful judgment, it has been repeated by many ever since that time. Check out my post for more on this and to get the article citation so you can read through all of it to gain some more valuable insights into this matter.
Omnia Vincit Veritas
It seems that Bartel, as well as the others he has apparently just uncritically repeated- John Salza and a rather amateurish site called catholic truth- are in over their heads and don’t grasp many of the concepts involved or are else playing dumb, e.g., power of governance, faculty, schism and the difference between a schismatic act and being in schism, and even what the sspx is, which is not constituted by any faithful. In fact, that they don’t have any canonical status actually argues against schism, for then there is no formal group to be in such. Perhaps this is why the initial excommunications and such were done against individuals as individuals versus as members of a group. Thus, it may be a case of determining that individual clerics are schismatic; and it would be foolish to assert a priori they are all such.
Finally, the whole premise here has no data behind it- that there is an alleged problem of “many” Catholics “flocking” to sspx masses. What data is being cited to support this? How many is many? That sounds unbelievable on its face. Even gathering such info. would seem quite difficult- would you survey your average diocesan tlm community or how would you determine it? And out of all the problems facing the Church right now, that this is what some people want to focus on is strange. It seems like this is a way for some people to create a little niche issue for themselves to sound off over and build up their name, especailly with the current climate for bashing all things deemed “traditional.”
JMJ
Well done, Mr. Bartel!! So glad to see this come out! Interesting how many people like to complicate the issue and introduce all kinds of red herrings when the evidence against the Society truly being Catholic is so obvious. Thank you for bringing clarity to the situation and calling for these clerics like Bishop Schneider and Vigano to answer for the confusion they have brought upon many faithful Catholics by their unjustified endorsement of the SSPX. Lord, have mercy.
God bless you for the many hours you put into this careful treatment of the subject!
Miss Happy Catholic, I join you in congratulating Mr. Bartel. I also wish you a blessed Lent.
The Church does not recognize the SSPX as being in communion. It doesn’t matter if they are classified as schismatics, or irregular, or whatever anyone wants to call it. They aren’t recognized. Period. They aren’t visibly united to Rome. They may have all the qualifications to be “Catholic,” but if Rome doesn’t recognize them, then they aren’t. The SSPX are really no different than Protestants in that arena. A Catholic needs more than Catholic beliefs, valid sacraments, and a Latin Liturgy. It needs visible unity to the Roman Pontiff.
So how do you explain so many people (including priests, bishops and Cardinals) visibly united to the Roman Pontiff who do not hold Catholic beliefs? In fact, they even promote un-Catholic beliefs with the Roman Pontiff’s blessing?
Those visibly united to the Roman Pontiff who don’t hold to Catholic beliefs place themselves outside the Church as well. They don’t have the Pope’s “blessing” officially, but admittedly that is confusing to Catholics, and a cause for scandal, which is why I think those in high-profile positions need to be disciplined officially by Rome. Joe Biden and the German bishops come to mind. A random priest in a parish who says Mass with the intention of doing what the Church wants, even if he holds erroneous beliefs, doesn’t mean the Mass he says is invalid nor illicit. His own parishioners have a right to call him out, too. And yes, I am almost certain that if someone had absolutely no choice but to attend an SSPX or Eastern Orthodox Mass due to their circumstances (like many Germans today) that is permissible. But when there’s another parish down the road, or an FSSP parish in the same area, not so much.
Anon, I’m not sure, but I think priests who teach heresy are a different matter. The answer to that should be excommunication, not secession.
Once again, this is factually untrue. The status of the SSPX has been judged numerous times by competent Church authorities to be a matter of INTERNAL Church discipline.
Timothy,
Pope Benedict said it’s a doctrinal issue, not internal discipline. I’ve been trying to post Pope Benedict’s exact words on this, but somehow it could not get through CWR censorship. What has CWR got against Pope Benedict, I wonder?
What is the source of the information? Where exactly has Benedict said what you wish us to know? Pope Benedict himself did lift the excommunications of the four bishops.
From Pope Benedict XVI’s Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church, dated March 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”.
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_2009“”0″310_remissione-scomunica.html
(Also listed under Footnotes in Bartel’s article.)
And oh, by the way, meiron:
That Letter’s main purpose is to announce the lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops. It, however, explains why SSPX has no canonical status within the Church, for doctrinal reason, not merely disciplinary. It also condemns antisemitism. (It’s listed among the footnotes of the above Bartel article.)
I was able to finally post an excerpt from it. It’s somewhere around here. If you can’t find it, just tell me. I’ll repost it. Have a blessed Lent.
Thanks, Porter Girl. Well-explained. God’s blessings be with you this holy season.
I’m just wondering why do many anti-Pope Francis or anti-Vatican II media channels in the U.S. keep importing bishops from outside the U.S. like the staple Vigano and Schneider. Don’t we have many and more competent native bishops in this line like, among many, Strickland and Poprocki?
The bishop in my former diocese was Irish. If our Church is universal, which is the original meaning of catholic, how does a bishop’s birthplace signify? Should St. Patrick have been rejected because he wasn’t born in Ireland?
MissHappyCatholic:
What you state is “obvious” is simply not the case, and it is not a question of red herrings being employed unjustly by many. Please see my comments posted earlier today at 10:06 AM, and then carefully and honestly review all of the articles I cite that are written by serious scholars, including some canon lawyers and priests who present thoughtful reflections, evidence, relevant personal experiences and other unique qualifications that may very well make you even pleased to at least withdraw your rash “the SSPX is obviously in Schism” conclusion that you have jumped to without examining what these good Catholic scholars have opined on the matter.
Enjoy the intellectual journey into this important Faith matter.
The SSPX believes in all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church as practiced and taught since the Apostles. If Vatican II simply confirmed those dogmas and doctrines, then why does the Vatican insist that SSPX accept everything in VII? If there are no contradiction between the previous Councils and VII then why the emphasis on VII? How can a Catholic who believes in all the previous Councils be outside the Church if they disagree with VII interpretation of the Faith? Obvious that there are documents in VII which are a danger to the Faith, as witnessed by the collapse of faith over the last 50 years.
Bingo. Archbishop Lefebvre said many times that he and the priests of the SSPX accept and embrace more of the documents of Vatican II than any other society of priests in the Church. The irony could not be greater. You do not even have to believe in the Ten Commandments to be a Jesuit “in communion with Rome.”
Mark: I think your reasoning is logical and persuasive, and gets to the heart of the matter.
Who am I to judge the SSPX? The problem with the above article (like the writings of Weigel) is that they seem to ignore reality. We live in a Church where the German bishops are “in full communion” and the SSPX are schismatic?! The cognitive dissonance is too much.
I think if we are all being honest many CWR readers would be going to the SSPX if they lived in Germany. I’m not a trad, but I think that in light of the actual situation in the Church, we are going to start having deeper conversations about what “full communion” really means.
To the Anon with Cognitive Dissonance: Thanks that good dose of acknowledging reality. Reality, i.e., real conditions on the ground, is always a good starting point. Ignoring the “elephant in the room” always leads to poor problems solving.
Dear Anon,
The German bishops are not the topic of the above article, that’s why they are not mentioned.
I’m not a defender of the Lefebvrites by any stretch of the imagination, but this is simply twaddle. The SSPX are not a separate church or “ecclesial communion”. Their situation is a matter of the Church’s internal discipline. Schism doesn’t mean “disobeying the Holy Father”. It means withdrawing obedience to the Holy Father. That’s a simple matter of canonical definitions. Self-righteously condemning other Catholics for being “schismatic” may make Mr Bartel feel better about himself. But it has nothing to do with reality.
Well said. If schism meant disobeying the Pope then what does that say about bishops who promoted blessing same sex relationships against the Vatican’s warning. Are we to obey every word that comes out of mouth of the Pope?
The Two Swords:
For what it’s worth: From Pope Benedict XVI’s Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church, dated March 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”.
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_2009“”0″310_remissione-scomunica.html
(Also listed under Footnotes in Bartel’s article.)
BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE
1. Endorsing the “new springtime of Vatican II” (John Paul’s often spoken phrase) is a problem, in my view, since it means being a cheerleader for the devastating harm done to Catholics since 1965 by the way popes, bishops and priests have conducted themselves and their ministries in carrying out this “new springtime.” (It really isn’t possible to separate the “new springtime teachings and rulership of Pope Francis from the “new springtime” teachings and rulership of John Paul II. If you accept one, you must accept the other.)
2. On the other hand, endorsing Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX, and the Traditionalist Movement in general is a problem since it seems to suggest that the the doctrine of the Indefectibility of the Church has been undermined or disproven.
3. Still, I applaud Catholic World Report for providing interesting analysis and opinions on the case of the SSPX.
4. I have read a lot of the books and magazines published or sold by the SSPX, and these materials have given me a lot of information that I would never have gotten from pro-Vatican II sources.
5. I believe that pro-Vatican II authors, seminaries, magazines, and universities give a very skewed, incomplete, and inaccurate history and theology of the last 150 years of the Church.
6. The only way I know to correct and amend this is to read magazines and books published or sold by SSPX.
7. Even if the SSPX materials are themselves imperfect (as they certainly are), they still enable a sober, patient person, when used in combination with pro-Vatican II sources, to piece together a picture of what has happened, and maybe get some insights about what can or should be done.
An Open Letter to lay Dominican brother, Andrew Bartel:
Dear Sir,
1. Please consider an approach of the Heart over the approach of the Head.
2. The approach of the Head focuses on things like canon law, precise wording of documents, high concepts, big ideas, and giving huge respect to visible hierarchical authorities in offices of high esteem.
3. An approach of the Heart focuses on the religious experiences of ordinary, non-famous Catholics in their homes, at work, at church, at play. 4. I think everyone here on the Catholic World Report website, including you probably, agrees that the Catholic people have been badly harmed and injured by the leadership (local and global) coming from Catholic authorities in the last 60 or so years.
5. Let us focus on the ordinary Catholics, who do not have have, and will never have, fancy, expensive degrees in theology, canon law, liturgy, or Church history.
6. Let us have mercy on these ordinary folk.
7. Let us dwell on the lostness and suffering of the great mass of practicing Catholics, non-practicing Catholics, and ex-Catholics, and not worry so much about the reputations of high clerics who come and go, and who most of us never know personally.
8. Many people believe that the sure guidance and protection of the Church has been withdrawn from the ordinary people, and replaced with mass confusion, endless opinions, endless novelties in practice and theology, and the teaching (or misteaching) of primacy of conscience doctrine (a “do whatever you want as long as you are sincere” card).
9. Let us not worry so much about vindicating famous/infamous Pope Francis or vindicating famous/infamous Archbishop Lefebvre.
10. Let us think about what is needed by, and deserved by, the average lost, confused, and sorely tempted man, woman, and child in the world.
Okay? Isn’t that what Jesus wants? Didn’t St. Francis of Assisi have such compassion for Regular Joe and Jane?
Sincerely,
Gus
VATICAN II’S “DEGREES OF COMMUNION”
1. I wonder if the author of this article, the esteemed lay Dominican brother, Andrew Bartel, possibly needs to give more consideration to the Vatican II doctrine of the “decrees of communion.”
2. Consider this quotation from the Vatican II decree on Ecumenism:
“Men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in SOME, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (UG, §3).
3. Consider these quotations from Pope John Paul II’s Ut Unam Sint:
“In a similar way, the bilateral theological dialogues carried on with the major Christian Communities start from a recognition of the DEGREE of communion already present, in order to go on to discuss specific areas of disagreement.”
“As I have already emphasized, the cooperation among Christians clearly manifests that DEGREE of communion which already exists among them.”
4. The pre-Vatican II church didn’t have this “decrees of communion” doctrine because it didn’t have the Vatican II “ecumenism” doctrine (and, it is my understanding that the pope in 1928 had expressly condemned the “ecumenism” doctrine and practice that Vatican II later approved and promoted; this seeming contradiction WAS discussed by the bishops at the Vatican II Council).
5. So, many thoughtful persons would agree that the SSPX adhering people do not currently have perfect communion with the Catholic Church. But that is a far cry from conclusing that the SSPX people are in schism.
6. So, is this little dab of analysis of mine correct? Perfect? Ha! No. But I do think the Vatican II’s new doctrine of the “degrees of communion” really does need to be factored in within any analysis of the case of the SSPX.
7. All the popes since Vatican II have said repeatedly that we Catholics have a lot to learn from our “separated brethren” about how to be good Christians and how to think about Christ and the Church.
8. So, if indeed the SSPX are separated brethen, shouldn’t we nevertheless admit that there is a lot that we can potentially learn from thee SSPX about how to be good Christians? Wouldn’t it be contradictory and illogical to say we have much to learn from the people of the Anglican Church but nothing to learn from the SSPX? Is it sensible to have tons of love for, fellowship with, and joint prayer and worship services with Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans, but have nothing but hate, scorn, rejection, and condemnation for the SSPX?
Mr. Gus, this analysis by Bartel, put in some meaningful light, is about his trying to make sense of the legitimacy of the SSPX being part in the Church; using Bishop Schneider’s defenses to produce rebuttals against SSPX, to get at some kind of a result. In the end he makes very strong remarks suggesting exclusion. Neither his method nor his process nor his evidentiary can be addressed intelligently through your appeal to St. Francis Assisi for every man, woman and child globally in need -on grounds that St. Francis had compassion for all Joes and Janes. You may be indicating that you think the SSPX should be overhauled into some sort of social justice movement or maybe a house for the sick; but if so you should say it.
Who cares if this author considers the SSPX to be in schism? Rome has NOT declared any such thing and Pope Francis has extended faculties to SSPX priests for the sacrament of penance and witnessing marriages. How does the Supreme Pontiff grant faculties to schismatics? With all the trauma being visited upon the universal Church at this time, the SSPX is the least troubling situation for those who sincerely love holy mother Church.
1. John W. Proctor: You comment is very appropriate and wise.
2. I would just add the observation that when people promote the thesis that the SSPX people are not part of the Catholic Church, such people are trying to defend and/or restore order in the Catholic Church, the sort of good, holy, salvific order that existed in the Church before the “new springtime” (John Paul II’s phrase) of the Vatican II Council.
3. And, I think it is very good to defend and/or restore order. Order, good order, is absolutely necessary. Chaos is destructive, demoralizing.
4. So, I empathize with the author of this article.
5. But I think I agree that pushing the idea that the SSPX people are no part of the Church isn’t going to restore order in the Catholic Church.
6. The disordered order and lack of discipine, along with many new, incoherent theological theories and doctrines subsisting throughout the Church, is now so widespread now that the SSPX matter pales in comparison.
7. And all this destructive, demoralizing chaos can ended only by the supreme authority in the Church. Good authors on good websites like Catholic World Report provide a great service. But they can’t end this chaos and suffering in our Church, in our famiies, in our souls.
Francis will grant all eastern orthodox the same privileges. I’ll be waiting for their response.
Here is the only solution I can see to the current state of the Church:
1. Some pope (call him Pope X) will sit at his desk and weep for all harm done to ordinary Catholic lay people, and to rank and file priests, nuns, and monks, by the grand experiment in systematic modernizing reformation/renewal that was launched by the Vatican II Council and that was directed by a series of popes since then.
2. Pope X will know that some will be dismayed at Pope X that telling the Church that great harm was done to the Church by the papally approved Vatican II Council, and by the subsequent popes (some canonized) who oversaw the implementation of the Council’s systematic program of modernizing reformation.
3. But Pope X, realizing that this tragedy and catastrophe must be ended, makes the judgment that the lesser of the two evils is having Catholic people learn that their popes in the period of about 1962 to 2024 (or whenever Pope X takes this action) were very irresponslbe, reckless, and derelict in their duties.
4. So, Pope X will, on this own authority, issue documents that do the following:
a. Ending Vatican II ecumenism. This will be replaced by the traditional mission to convert all to the Catholic Church. Pope X will restore the standing of the 1928 papal condemnation of ecumenism.
b. Ending all Catholic participation in interfaith meetings, interfaith prayer sessions, and interfaith worship rituals.
c. End the Novus Order mass.
d. Allow about 80% of the Latin in the traditional Latin Mass to be translated into local languages, so that ordinary peoplee can understand the Mass better.
e. Restore the altar, communion rails, and the priest facing the altar, as per the traditional Mass.
f. Establish a Church-wide zero tolerance for dissent on matters of Church doctrine and discipline. Anyone in the Church trying to be a pressure group or dissent group will be quickly disciplined, including up to excommunication if less punishments don’t work.
g. Ending the acceptance in the Church of the new Vatican II doctrine of Religious Liberty, and returning to the traditonal Catholic doctrine on Religious Liberty, which clearly and unambiguously declared that there is only ONE true faith and only ONE true Church.
Mr. Gus the things you describe could look like the esteemed polyhedron with many undefended sides and outposts; and can overpower, including by
1. making the short-view and the long-view look the same but tricky
2. focusing on minutiae through too many placements and suggestions
3. having everything equidistant yet out of reach and not in SSPX’s lanes.
Please forgive me for treating you like the inimitable puzzle but you make some good references then lose them in the multiplying arrays you keep charting.
Your objections have already been addressed in the article you clearly skimmed over and did not read carefully.
Also Pope Francis granting them faculties (as opposed to merely stating they already had them) to hear confessions and perform marriages proves they are schismatic and not the opposite. After all does the Pope go out of his way to grant such faculties to Priests who are already in good standing? I think not.
It is clear the SSPX is in fact in schism. Pretending otherwise is the opposite error of modernism. Note Francis did not grant them faculties to say Mass or have a ministry.
Stop deluding yourself.
That is erroneous in various ways. People can make their arguments, but not at the expense of canonical, theological, and logical truth. You must be a priest in good standing/ in communion already to receive faculties, delegation, and various other grants, and someone in schism could not possibly receive them. Faculties do not all come automatically with ordination but are granted separately by the bishop, e.g. to hear confessions, to preach. Being able to validly celebrate Mass is a power that comes with ordination and does not arise from a separate faculty. The validity of sspx masses has always been recognized. We also need to understand what ministry is- administering sacraments precisely is exercising ministry, so that too is being implicitly recognized. There is no separate faculty of “exercising ministry.” A priest does not enter into communion or become in good standing by being granted faculties or “ministry.”
It is madness to claim that a priest in a state of schism would be given a share in the Church’s power of governance- which is what faculties involve. How can someone outside the Church be given things presupposing being in the Church? And Francis did not actually grant them a faculty for confession but did at least infer they already possessed it. (See an earlier post invoking the official latin text which does not even use words like faculty or delegation but simply speaks of recognizing their ability to absolve. Whether this is an omission due to sloppiness can’t be excluded, however.) Also, neither he, nor any other authority of the holy see over the last few decades, has said that sspx marriages and confessions were invalid all this time. And the ability to absolve for sspx clerics is regular, not just for extraordinary circumstances/emergencies.
If you still insist on your claim, perhaps you can define for us what a faculty is and tell us which ones need to be granted by the bishop to a newly ordained priest or one in good standing already? It seems from earlier posts you’re partly relying on info. from the tabloidesque “church militant,” which is known for playing fast and loose with the truth.
Chris:
You are correct in saying that faculties do not all come automatically with ordination but are granted separately by the bishop, e.g. to hear confessions, etc.
But there are rare cases or special circumstances where any priest at all can hear confession and grant absolution, such as when a penitent is in danger of death or some other great emergencies. It does not matter whether the priest has been laicized, a heretic, a schismatic, irreligious, excommunicated, even a non-Catholic whose church has the sacrament of confession, or even if there are regular priests nearby. It’s the penitent’s choice. (I can’t point to any source or documents on this. I only read it in Fr. Z’s blog.)
I believe that was the idea behind Pope Francis’ granting faculties to SSPX priests during the Year of Mercy (and beyond) which was a special time of the Church.
BTW. I am reminded of a priest, all facultied-up, who travelled a long distance to see and administer the sacrament to his dying mother. When he arrived, she refused to confess to him. She asked for another priest. (Can’t blame her.)
Jim the Scott, to avoid any confusion in case your remark is addressed for mine to Gus, I wish myself to add fair comment upon my own input.
I think I have fairly read Bartel in order to be able to comment on Mr. Gus as I have done it so far; and on Bartel. Bartel is out of step, the whole affair is pointed in the direction of canonical regularization following the lifting of the excommunications and deriving from its charity and utter power. Schneider proceeds from this and his postulates complement and assist the flow. Bartel does not and has 1. misappropriated Schneider and 2. argued in a prejudiced/prejudicing way to the preconceived negative result; disrupting the spirit and the truth in the dialogue and disfiguring the advocacy via misusing Schneider’s tracts.
Moreover Schneider recognized the greatness of what is happening: the astounding character of the reclamation, Schneider’s appreciating it, the beauty in the Church that initiated it and wants it and the SSPX’s desire to see it come to full reality – nothing noticed by Bartel so how can he respect it or see his own manifold oversights, failings in logic and gaping holes in his arguments. Worse, sir, that he proposes to insert his singular biographical to determine how this goes. I don’t want to name how bad that is, here in these pages.
Then comes Mr. Gus to applaud it along with this and that yet root for the TLM movement with all manner of discussion from here to who knows where.
Jim the Scott you made a dash for it up the page, March 18, 2023 at 9:19 am.
Jim the Scott:
It may be that it is you deluding yourself. Please see my comment of March 15, 2023 at 10:06 AM, and carefully review the handful of scholarly articles and one video I set forth that are authored by highly qualified and sincere individuals.
Next, check out the very insightful comment by Chris on March 15, 2023 at 2:42 PM.
Lastly, check out the intriguing comment by Timothy J. Williams of March 16, 2023 at 7:41 AM.
The things you claim prove X do nothing of the sort as you will discover once you go over the cited comments and the excellent resources I set forth in my comment. You may still oppose much of what the SSPX does, etc., but at least you will have a better understanding of what it’s actual status is in the Church.
Remember the SSPX were kicked to the curb. They did not willfully leave by trying to defend the faith. This article assumes the Latin Rite is the only Rite of Catholicism! Many Rites are valid and are all Catholic. This article is ridiculous in 2023 with what we have seen in the past 60 years with spirit of V2 reforms. And fyi i was raised in the NO v2 mass
“This article assumes the Latin Rite is the only Rite of Catholicism!”
No, it doesn’t. Your remarks makes no sense.
Which one should I join, German Catholic Church or SSPX?
Jiri Heger
Succinctly put. Why, it must be the German church for they are not in schism, in union with the pope. That was easy!;)
😄 but also 😥.
I find Rev. Dr. Meuli’s and Bishop Schneider’s arguments about SSPX more persuasive than the Synodal Way’s bent toward sin.
Most important is union with Christ through the Church (not through a pope). A pope who abrogates tradition abrogates his very position in the Church. Popes are subject to tradition, not above it.
no argument here. Popes are supposed to defend tradition (or so i’ve read) but was it being defended the last ten years? Fifty years? The NO was a break from tradition only few speak about that. Enter sspx.
https://www.thepostil.com/traditionis-custodes-to-guard-and-defend-tradition/
sam:
Below is an excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI’s Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church, March 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.”
Here’s the link: (Also listed as reference by the above article)
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_2009“”0″310_remissione-scomunica.html
The cited link leads to an error page.
Sorry, Meiron.
Please try this:
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
Or go to the Vatican site, turn to the Benedict XVI section, click on “Letters,” then, “2009.” There are two pages under Letters – Click on March 2009 on the second page.
Or (I hope this works) go to the above Bartel article, scroll down to “Endnotes.” It’s the seventh on the list of footnote links.
It’s a long read. I wonder if CWR will allow me to copy and paste the whole thing.
By the way, the main subject of the letter is the lifting of excommunication of the four bishops. Then it continues on to explain why SSPX has no canonical status within the Church. It also condemns semitism.
A blessed Lent to you.
Correction: It also condemns antisemitism.
meiron,
Go to the error page again and click on the lower right hand corner that says, “Go to home.” That should lead you to the Benedict XVI section. Click on “Letters” on the table of contents. That section has 2 pages. The March 2009 Letter is on the second page.
Or go back to the Bartel article above, scroll down to “Endnotes.” It’s the seventh on the list of footnote links. Hope it works. A blessed Lent to you.
The LA STAMPA article in the link, “Society of St. Pius X (SSPX): What is and what is not negotiable for reconciliation with the Catholic Church?”, by Lisa Palmieri-Billig, July 28 2016, has a most informative discussion about the many-sided aspects to regularizing SSPX; while also showing where the progression got to by 2016.
I think this article provides a framing for intelligent and bracing discussion that should continue to serve as an example, heading up a range of empowering ideas.
INSIDE OF WHICH, THREE THINGS COME THROUGH VERY CLEARLY.
1. SSPX is not unique and not the only Catholic group that won’t interpret everything in VATICAN II along dogmatic channeling. They are right.
2. Non-Catholics citing the Council can try to lead with their own kinds of hermeneuitcs of orthodoxy to whatever purpose. They can get it wrong.
3. This is a message affecting the whole Church and the intense focus on SSPX is prejudicial and unnecessary. Left so it is a source of chronic debilitation.
I really enjoyed reading Palmieri-Billig’s article that has remained alive and fertile through so many years. I highly recommend it to everyone.
‘ Questioned on this subject, Rabbi David Rosen, AJC’s International Drector for Interreligious Relations, replied: ” I trust the statement of Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, that the acceptance of Nostra Aetate as binding would have to be a requirement for the Society of Saint Pius X before its members could be formally embraced by Holy See; and I find it impossible to believe that Pope Francis would expect anything less. ” ‘
https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2016/07/28/news/society-of-st-pius-x-sspx-what-is-and-what-is-not-negotiable-for-reconciliation-with-the-catholic-church-1.34841350/
I wonder what Mr Bartel would say to faithful Catholics in Germany who are tempted to join the SSPX German district after watching their entire episcopal conference become full heretics on homosexuality last week? Is remaining in communion with heretical German bishops less immoral than joining the schismatic SSPX? At least the SSPX does not deny the basic tenants of the Christian faith. Their only fault is not being in canonical communion with the Pope, compare that to the German bishops who deny almost every Christian dogma. I think as more episcopal conferences around the world end up embracing the German errors and the Vatican continues to do nothing, the arguments against the SSPX in this article will hold less and less wait with people. The facts on the ground will change the dynamics in favor of the SSPX. I think less and less people will care about the legal arguments about schism, when they see all these bishops in communion with the Pope embracing errors like same sex blessings. Rest assured that problem will spread way beyond Germany and Western Europe. How convincing will Mr. Bartel’s arguments continue to hold as error continues to spread.
To Margarita and all others who continue to wrongly assume that the faculties granted to the SSPX by Pope Francis are equivalent to or basically the same as the “emergency powers” that are automatically granted to the Orthodox clergy in very limited and non-regular circumstances. THIS IS COMPLETELY FALSE.
During the Year of Mercy a handful of years back, Pope Francis granted the clergy of the SSPX the faculty to hear confessions and grant absolution. Later on, Pope Francis granted A REGULAR AND ONGOING FACULTY TO THE PRIESTS OF THE SSPX TO HEAR CONFESSIONS AND GRANT ABSOLUTION.
NOTE WELL: A REGULAR, ONGOING CANONICAL FACULTY CANNOT BE GRANTED TO ANY PRIEST OR BISHOP OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
REPEAT: A REGULAR, ONGOING CANONICAL FACULTY CANNOT BE GRANTED TO ANY PRIEST OR BISHOP OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
THEREFORE, THE EMERGENCY POWERS THAT MEMBERS OF EASTERN ORTHODOX AND OTHER VALIDLY ORDAINED PRIESTS AND BISHOPS POSSESS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS THE FACULTY GRANTED TO THE SSPX.
Based on Franics’ act of granting the regular canonical faculty, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the SSPX to be in Schism. Instead, the status of the SSPX can be characterized as being in “partial schism,” but more accurately and officially the SSPX is in an irregular status that means they are part of the Church, but not in Full Communion with Rome.
I sincerely invite all good readers of CWR to please carefully pore over my previous comment of March 15, 2023 at 10:06 AM because it includes a list of articles and a video provided by very serious scholars, including a Bishop, a Priest, Canon Lawyers, etc. that present very relevant and important information regarding the actual status of the SSPX.
Instead of guessing, speculating, and so on, check the information provided by the serious and sincere individuals I feature in my aforementioned March 15 comment (information on where to access their online material is also set forth), and then come to a much better informed judgment in order to exercise solid Catholic justice when judging such things.
Once more for good measure: No priest or bishop outside the Catholic Church can be granted a regular, full-time, and ongoing faculty to administer any sacrament. Accordingly, since Pope Francis granted the SSPX a regular, full-time, and ongoing faculty to administer the sacrament of reconciliation, and since only members of the Church can receive such a faculty, then ipso facto the SSPX is a member of the Catholic Church and not in Schism. The SSPX is not in full communion with Rome, but it is in partial communion, which grants them a less-than-ideal but still recognized membership in the Catholic Church.
To DocVerit:
Below is an excerpt from the definitive Pope Benedict XVI’s Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church, March 2009. Based on this, Pope Francis’ granting faculty to SSPX priests has got to be a very SPECIAL circumstance, indeed.)
“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.”
Here’s the link: (Also listed under Footnotes in the above article)
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_2009“”0″310_remissione-scomunica.html
Margarita:
Oh my. Try to better understand necessary distinctions to avoid jumping to false conclusions as you have done thus far in what you have offered in your comments.
The statement by Pope Benedict in 2009 is something I have been well aware of for many years, so the citation you provide is superfluous, but perhaps others will benefit from it.
Now, even if what Pope Benedict stated was indeed the accurate status of the SSPX in 2009***,….then what Pope Francis did in 2015/2016 COMPLETELY OVERRIDES and RENDERS MOOT Pope Benedict’s 2009 conclusion of “no canonical status” that ceased to be the case ever since the end of 2015 when Pope Francis granted the SSPX priests the CANONICAL FACULTY to administer the SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, first for roughly one year, and then even more definitively on an ongoing and regular basis that he granted in 2016. Why?
The granting of the initial faculty that was later extended to the granting of an ongoing, regular faculty CANNOT BE GRANTED TO ANYONE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, so once again assuming what you are basing your false conclusion on regarding Pope Benedict’s statement of 2009 was indeed the case, then what Pope Francis did in 2015/2016 SUPPLIED A CANONICAL STATUS AT THE EXACT SAME TIME HE GRANTED THE CANONICAL FACULTY TO HEAR CONFESSIONS AND GRANT ABSOLUTION THAT, ONCE AGAIN, CANNOT BE GRANTED TO ANYONE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Next, your seriously flawed and somewhat bizarre application of “special circumstance” regarding how you characterize what Pope Francis did is NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING THE SAME THING AS THE PROPER UNDERSTANDING and APPLICATION OF “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE” THAT SPECIFICALLY INVOLVES LIMITED EMERGENCY SITUATIONS WHEREIN VALIDLY ORDAINED PRIESTS OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (LIKE EASTERN ORTHODOX PRIESTS) AUTOMATICALLY HAVE THE CAPACITY (NOT CANONICAL FACULTY – VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION) TO HEAR CONFESSIONS, ETC. THIS POWER/CAPACITY IS NOT THE SAME THING OR EQUIVALENT TO GRANTING REGULAR ONGOING CANONICAL FACULTIES RESERVED ONLY FOR MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH, LIKE WHAT WAS GRANTED TO THE SSPX in 2016 and STILL in EFFECT TODAY.
The kind of “special circumstance” you mention is something Popes engage in quite often, announcing this or that in light of X special circumstance, and indeed, the initial limited status granted to the SSPX for the Year of Mercy that occurred during the end of 2015 to near the end of 2016 was in response to the special circumstance of the Year of Mercy.
Nevertheless, in his initial grant of the canonical faculty to administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation in 2015 for the Year of Mercy, first note that Pope Francis did indeed supply a canonical faculty to the SSPX that was not granted to any priests outside the Church (cannot be done; recall the necessary distinction between a capacity and a sanctioned canonical faculty), so even here the Pope supplied what can be considered an irregular but still legitimate canonical status to the SSPX, THEREBY ASSERTING THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH even though not in full communion with Rome. Of course what Pope Francis did in 2016 was even more definitive by granting the ongoing and regular canonical faculty to administer the sacrament of reconciliation, so indeed the SSPX is part of the Church and at least since late 2015 or 2016, Pope Francis’ actions OVERRIDE AND RENDER MOOT THE PRESUMED “NO CANONICAL STATUS” as stated by Pope Benedict in 2009.
*What you and many people are unaware of is the analysis of super canon lawyer/priest Rev. Dr. Meuli who pointed out that Pope John Paul II’s declaration of the penalty of schism on the SSPX after the consecrations done by Archbishop Lefebvre was based on an erroneous application of canon law that applies to what Lefebvre actually did. As Meuli made clear, Pope John Paul II was ill-served by his canon lawyers, and instead of properly using and applying the proper X section of canon law that calls for a lesser penalty than schism, he used and applied the improper Y section of canon law. As such, the canonically incorrect penalty that Pope John Paul II applied to the SSPX has simply been accepted as legitimate, but Meuli points out why it was never the case, and he submitted his analysis for anyone who chose to dispute his conclusions, and he also made himself available to anyone for some 20 years before his death to engage him personally if they wished to challenge his analysis, but it appears that nobody did this, perhaps because of the recognized excellence that Meuli was known for possessing, which is why I have referred to him as a super canon lawyer, or the best among the best. As such, what Pope John Paul II declared about the SSPX, and which judgment has been basically accepted and repeated by Pope Benedict and others is dubious at best because of the very serious canon law error from the get-go.
Please do yourself a very beneficial favor by accepting my recommendation to seriously go over my comment post of March 15, 2023 at 10:06 AM, and then carefully review all of the sources of information I set forth in my comment (includes the article by Rev. Dr. Meuli) to gain a much better understanding regarding the current status of the SSPX as part of the Church, albeit not in full communion with Rome.
And do indeed wisely recognize how Pope Francis’ 2015/2016 actions completely override what Pope Benedict set forth in 2009 for all of the reasons set forth. It is simply irrational to believe something that cannot be the case, like the irrational belief that the Pope can grant canonical faculties to anyone outside the Church.
Good luck and God Bless.
DocVerit:
In cases of extreme emergency, or if a penitent is near death, or in very special times and circumstances, any priest at all can administer the sacrament of penance and that will be legit and valid in the eyes of the Lord and His Church.
What’s more, if a penitent is in grave danger or dying, it’s his choice of priest. Even if there are regular priests (in good standing) nearby, the penitent may instead choose a not-too-kosher priest to administer the sacrament to him.
Any priest at all. It does not matter if he is a heretic, a schismatic, has been laicized, is serving a term in prison, a habitual sinner, a drunkard, SSPX, or even non-Catholic whose denomination has sacramental confession. He can administer the sacrament to some souls in danger or dying and in some special cases. (I can’t provide you with source documents on this; I merely read it in Fr. Z’s blog who teaches on such matters and usually backs up what he writes with canon law.)
That is the idea behind Pope Francis’ granting the faculty to SSPX priests during (and beyond) the Year of Mercy. First, because the Year of Mercy is a very SPECIAL (SPECIAL) time for the Church. And, second, because as SSPX has always claimed, its foundation is in response to the Church’s state of EMERGENCY (EMERGENCY.)
Pope Francis did not (and did not have to) abrogate Pope Benedict’s definitive judgement on the non-canonical status of SSPX to grant SSPX priests the faculty. He simply did.
Same case with sacramental marriages. The ministers of the sacrament of matrimony are the couple themselves, so it stands to reason that SSPX priests may witness to it.
Have a blessed Lent.
Margarita:
Your first three paragraphs are superfluous and require a big Duh; no kidding.
Why do you repeat things that are not in dispute, but then jump to the false conclusion that intentionally ignores the all-important reality that a canonical faculty cannot be granted to any priest outside the Catholic Church?
Why do you falsely equate a canonical faculty that can only be granted to Catholic priests with the emergency power/capacity to administer the sacrament of reconciliation, etc. by any validly ordained priest inside or outside the Catholic Church?
Focus: The emergency power (even if you wish to use the term “faculty” instead of power; it is not a canonical faculty reserved only for Catholic priests) enjoyed by priests outside the Catholic Church to administer the sacrament of reconciliation, etc. in cases of emergency or other limited circumstances accepted by the Church IS NOT and never has been THE SAME THING as the grant of the FOR CATHOLICS ONLY CANONICAL FACULTY to administer the sacrament of reconciliation on an ongoing basis (not just for emergencies, etc.) that can only be granted to Catholic priests.
Fr. Z, whom you cite, is squarely behind the correct understanding that the SSPX is not in Schism, but it does in fact have an irregular status INSIDE the Church, and he also points out the reality you irrationally deny that Catholic canonical faculties to administer any sacrament cannot be granted to any priest who is not a member of the Catholic Church.
See Fr. Z’s “Ask Father: What’s the Truth about the SSPX?” April 16, 2020.
You also continue to falsely portray what Pope Francis did regarding the Year of Mercy and thereafter, and you falsely equate what he did regarding the SSPX with the emergency power enjoyed by all validly ordained priests in limited circumstances. Moreover, you continue to wrongly apply “special circumstance” as you erroneously believe that anything that can be characterized as a “special circumstance” limits what is done under such a claimed “special circumstance,” which is pure rubbish.
It simply does not matter when or why the Pope granted the Catholic canonical faculty to administer the sacrament of reconciliation and what occasioned it like the Year of Mercy. It does not impact the reality of what was granted, which was the Catholic canonical faculty that can only be granted to Catholic priests. He did not simply repeat the well-known reality to acknowledge that the SSPX priests enjoyed the power to administer the sacrament in emergency situations. Instead, he granted them what can ONLY be granted to priests inside the Catholic Church, and by doing this, and as I stated in my previous comment, even if we accept Pope Benedict’s statement (not definitive by the way) of the SSPX without canonical status (note he did not use the term schism; deal with that as well; why did he avoid characterizing the SSPX as being in schism?), then Pope Francis SUPPLIED them with the canonical status of being inside the Church, albeit not in full communion, by the granting of the Catholic canonical faculty that cannot be granted to anyone outside the Church in any circumstance, special or otherwise.
Papal power and authority does not include the power to grant canonical faculties reserved only for Catholics to anyone outside the Catholic Church. As such, once Pope Francis granted to the SSPX priests a canonical faculty that can only be granted to Catholic priests, that act AUTOMATICALLY SUPPLIED them with CANONICAL status once the grant went into effect.
EMERGENCY is simply not in play no matter how much you irrationally wish to make it the case and wrongly assume other things as a result.
Interestingly, you appear to have inadvertently swerved into almost a proper understanding in your comment that…
“Pope Francis did not (and did not have to) abrogate Pope Benedict’s definitive judgement on the non-canonical status of SSPX to grant SSPX priests the faculty. He simply did.”
It is indeed the case that Pope Francis did not have to nullify or render no longer in effect Pope Benedict’s statement regarding the canonical status of the SSPX, but he did indeed do this, and his action, as stated above, did not simply acknowledge the emergency powers already enjoyed by the SSPX; it granted them the canonical faculty that provided them with the canonical status that can only be enjoyed by members of the Catholic Church.
Once more: a canonical faculty to administer a sacrament that can only be granted to members of the Catholic Church is not the same thing as an emergency power to administer a sacrament in emergencies or other special circumstances acknowledged by the Church.
Nobody outside the Catholic Church can ever be granted a canonical faculty to administer any sacrament in any circumstance, special or otherwise.
Accordingly, the current status of the SSPX, in light of the fact that they currently enjoy the Catholic only canonical faculty to administer the sacrament of reconciliation, are indeed members of the Catholic Church, not in schism, but in an irregular status less than full communion with the Church but still part of it. In more secular terms simply to help illustrate the reality, it’s kinda like being part-time members since they can exercise some rights of membership but not all.
Another illustration: The SSPX current status is sorta like a PhD college professor who at one-time enjoyed a full time teaching position with Carl Olson University, but then violated a rule of the school and was fired, which, of course, did not take away the professor’s PhD credentials even though he or she could not exercise them with the Carl Olson University. Time passed and the one-time full professor was given the opportunity to rejoin Carl Olson University, but only on a part-time basis. The professor agreed and became a recognized member of Carl Olson University once again. In fact, President Carl of the university told the professor “Welcome back aboard our ship. Perhaps in time you will once again enjoy full teaching status once you demonstrate that such would be appropriate, and I hope you will indeed do just that very soon.”
Bottom Line: The SSPX priests currently enjoy a limited priestly membership in the Catholic Church. Good people hope that they will soon enjoy full priestly membership, while others uncharitably and incorrectly insist that they don’t even enjoy the limited membership granted to them by Pope Francis when he gave them their limited membership by way of granting them the For Catholics Only Canonical Faculty to Administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation that Remains in Effect.
QED
I am indeed enjoying a blessed Lent, and I hope the same for you and your loved ones.
DocVerit:
Did you miss this part of the excerpt from Pope Benedict’s Letter as regards SSPX’s non-canonical status?:
“…even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – (they) do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”
It means that even though the excommunication of the four bishops was lifted, SSPX status in the Church remains illegal.
As regards the faculty Pope Francis granted SSPX priests (and other irregular priests) to administer the sacrament of penance in cases of grave necessities, special circumstances and danger of death, it’s backed by Canons 844 §2 and 976-977 here:
“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.”
“Can. 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.”
“Can. 977 The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.”
Also note here an excerpt from Pope Francis’ Letter, “Misericordia et Misera” declaration of the Holy Year of Mercy:
“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. (FOR THE RECOVERY OF FULL COMMUNION) 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.”
(It tells you, in no uncertain terms, that despite the granting of faculty to administer penance, SSPX as a society still has the need for the ” RECOVERY OF FULL COMMUNION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,” i.e., still non-canonical. STILL NOT IN FULL COMMUNION.)
Have a blessed Lent.
Margarita:
All of what you set forth does not lead to the false conclusion you insist upon irrationally making. I have once again in response to another one of your bogus comments provided a detailed response that will also suffice for your superfluous nonsense posted here. Hopefully it will appear soon and you can, also hopefully, deal honestly with what I actually point out instead of recasting it into bogus straw men you can knock down while failing to recognize a reality you just don’t want to admit.
Good luck.
Margarita:
Your first three paragraphs are superfluous and require a big Duh; no kidding.
Why do you repeat things that are not in dispute, but then jump to the false conclusion that intentionally ignores the all-important reality that a canonical faculty cannot be granted to any priest outside the Catholic Church?
Why do you falsely equate a canonical faculty that can only be granted to Catholic priests with the emergency power/capacity to administer the sacrament of reconciliation, etc. by any validly ordained priest inside or outside the Catholic Church?
Focus: The emergency power (even if you wish to use the term “faculty” instead of power; it is not a canonical faculty reserved only for Catholic priests) enjoyed by priests outside the Catholic Church to administer the sacrament of reconciliation, etc. in cases of emergency or other limited circumstances accepted by the Church IS NOT and never has been THE SAME THING as the grant of the FOR CATHOLICS ONLY CANONICAL FACULTY to administer the sacrament of reconciliation on an ongoing basis (not just for emergencies, etc.) that can only be granted to Catholic priests.
Fr. Z, whom you cite, is squarely behind the correct understanding that the SSPX is not in Schism, but it does in fact have an irregular status INSIDE the Church, and he also points out the reality you irrationally deny that Catholic canonical faculties to administer any sacrament cannot be granted to any priest who is not a member of the Catholic Church.
See Fr. Z’s “Ask Father: What’s the Truth about the SSPX?” April 16, 2020.
You also continue to falsely portray what Pope Francis did regarding the Year of Mercy and thereafter, and you falsely equate what he did regarding the SSPX with the emergency power enjoyed by all validly ordained priests in limited circumstances. Moreover, you continue to wrongly apply “special circumstance” as you erroneously believe that anything that can be characterized as a “special circumstance” limits what is done under such a claimed “special circumstance,” which is pure rubbish.
It simply does not matter when or why the Pope granted the Catholic canonical faculty to administer the sacrament of reconciliation and what occasioned it like the Year of Mercy. It does not impact the reality of what was granted, which was the Catholic canonical faculty that can only be granted to Catholic priests. He did not simply repeat the well-known reality to acknowledge that the SSPX priests enjoyed the power to administer the sacrament in emergency situations. Instead, he granted them what can ONLY be granted to priests inside the Catholic Church, and by doing this, and as I stated in my previous comment, even if we accept Pope Benedict’s statement (not definitive by the way) of the SSPX without canonical status (note he did not use the term schism; deal with that as well; why did he avoid characterizing the SSPX as being in schism?), then Pope Francis SUPPLIED them with the canonical status of being inside the Church, albeit not in full communion, by the granting of the Catholic canonical faculty that cannot be granted to anyone outside the Church in any circumstance, special or otherwise.
Papal power and authority does not include the power to grant canonical faculties reserved only for Catholics to anyone outside the Catholic Church. As such, once Pope Francis granted to the SSPX priests a canonical faculty that can only be granted to Catholic priests, that act AUTOMATICALLY SUPPLIED them with CANONICAL status once the grant went into effect.
EMERGENCY is simply not in play no matter how much you irrationally wish to make it the case and wrongly assume other things as a result.
Interestingly, you appear to have inadvertently swerved into almost a proper understanding in your comment that…
“Pope Francis did not (and did not have to) abrogate Pope Benedict’s definitive judgement on the non-canonical status of SSPX to grant SSPX priests the faculty. He simply did.”
It is indeed the case that Pope Francis did not have to nullify or render no longer in effect Pope Benedict’s statement regarding the canonical status of the SSPX, but he did indeed do this, and his action, as stated above, did not simply acknowledge the emergency powers already enjoyed by the SSPX; it granted them the canonical faculty that provided them with the canonical status that can only be enjoyed by members of the Catholic Church.
Once more: a canonical faculty to administer a sacrament that can only be granted to members of the Catholic Church is not the same thing as an emergency power to administer a sacrament in emergencies or other special circumstances acknowledged by the Church.
Nobody outside the Catholic Church can ever be granted a canonical faculty to administer any sacrament in any circumstance, special or otherwise.
Accordingly, the current status of the SSPX, in light of the fact that they currently enjoy the Catholic only canonical faculty to administer the sacrament of reconciliation, are indeed members of the Catholic Church, not in schism, but in an irregular status less than full communion with the Church but still part of it. In more secular terms simply to help illustrate the reality, it’s kinda like being part-time members since they can exercise some rights of membership but not all.
Another illustration: The SSPX current status is sorta like a PhD college professor who at one-time enjoyed a full time teaching position with Carl Olson University, but then violated a rule of the school and was fired, which, of course, did not take away the professor’s PhD credentials even though he or she could not exercise them with the Carl Olson University. Time passed and the one-time full professor was given the opportunity to rejoin Carl Olson University, but only on a part-time basis. The professor agreed and became a recognized member of Carl Olson University once again. In fact, President Carl of the university told the professor “Welcome back aboard our ship. Perhaps in time you will once again enjoy full teaching status once you demonstrate that such would be appropriate, and I hope you will indeed do just that very soon.”
Bottom Line: The SSPX priests currently enjoy a limited priestly membership in the Catholic Church. Good people hope that they will soon enjoy full priestly membership, while others uncharitably and incorrectly insist that they don’t even enjoy the limited membership granted to them by Pope Francis when he gave them their limited membership by way of granting them the For Catholics Only Canonical Faculty to Administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation that Remains in Effect.
QED
I am indeed enjoying a blessed Lent, and I hope the same for you and your loved ones.
The link does not work.
meiron:
Go to the error page again and click on the lower right hand corner that says, “Go to home.” That should lead you to the Benedict XVI section. Click on “Letters” on the table of contents. That section has 2 pages. The March 2009 Letter is on the second page.
Or go back to the Bartel article above, scroll down to “Endnotes.” It’s the tenth on the list of footnote links. Hope it works. A blessed Lent to you.
Thank you, Margarita. Meanwhile, I’ve done more research into the issues, and yes, I did read that Ratzinger mentioned problems with doctrine. The contentions between SSPX and Rome have existed for so many years, and there apparently was some stipulation or agreement to keep talks more private than public. For these reasons, it is difficult to learn precise truths about the situation. Positions seemed to vary somewhat depending on the years and the pope.
I’m personally sympathetic to both sides as well as confused about the positions of both sides. I don’t believe everything I read from everyone with their own two cent points about it.
On another comment you shared that your parish offers a variety of Masses, NO and TLM. I think you are blessed.
Thank you, Meiron. God bless you, too, and your loved ones this holy season.
Perhaps, you can take a look at this article: https://gloria.tv/post/31QU96AVcDx63ubJLxLbdL4cN
Thanks Mark. The initial thrust of this OP was about schism and how the society was guilty of but in light of Archbishop Lara’s statement, the situation is not that at all.
https://gloria.tv/post/31QU96AVcDx63ubJLxLbdL4cN
“Cardinal Rosalio Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, points out that the Code of Canon Law makes this same distinction. In commenting on the consecrations by Msgr Lefebvre in the 10 July 1988 issue of La Repubblica, he states:
‘The act of consecrating a bishop (without a papal mandate) is not in itself a schismatic act. In fact, the Code that deals with offences is divided into two sections. One deals with offenses against religion and the unity of the Church, and these are apostasy, schism and heresy. Consecrating a bishop without a pontifical mandate is, on the contrary, an offense against the exercise of a specific ministry.’
In case that is not clear, Cardinal Lara is stating that schism is one thing, and dealt with in its part of the Code, viz. ‘Offences against Religion and the Unity of the Church,’ whereas consecration without papal mandate is another thing, and dealt with in its own part of the Code, viz. ‘Usurpation of Ecclesiastical Functions’.”
Doc, you wrote:
“Based on Franics’ act of granting the regular canonical faculty, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the SSPX to be in Schism. Instead, the status of the SSPX can be characterized as being in “partial schism,” but more accurately and officially the SSPX is in an irregular status that means they are part of the Church, but not in Full Communion with Rome.”
Oh, yeah. And a pregnant woman might be only partially pregnant. Insane!
Margaraita:
You completely missed the point of the analogy, and like many other comments you make, such is a non-sequitur. Having an incomplete or partial relationship with the Church is not the same thing as being “partially pregnant,” so your comparison is laughably inept and indeed it is insane to try to make such a ridiculous comparison.
An irregular canonical status as that which is enjoyed by the SSPX is not analogous to the absurd claim of being “partially pregnant.” As you would have it, one is either in full communion with the Church or outside the Church, which is flat out false. Again, please check Fr. Z’s blog on the Status of the SSPX (April 16, 2020) so you can stop embarrassing yourself by making bogus claims not in line with Church teaching and Canon Law.
DocVerit,
You were the one that claims:
“…the status of the SSPX can be characterized as being in ‘partial schism.”
And please stop your ad hominem (ad feminem? ad mullierem?) fallacious arguments. When I debate, I don’t attack the person of the debater.
Pax et bonum to you this holy season.
Again, you miss the point, and you were the one that attempted to mock my position that I characterized it as such to try to provide a better understanding of the reality involved even though I made it clear that such was a characterization and not a definitive statement, but this did not matter to you. You ignored that so you could pounce with a silly analogy that makes no sense under the circumstances.
By mocking the characterization by way of the inept analogy, and then declaring it insane, you have indeed attacked yours truly, but I don’t cry about such things. I simply point out your errors in rebuttal.
Also, your parenthetical suggestions are insulting. What is ad feminem and ad mullierem? Do you wrongly suspect me of being anti-woman and criticizing you as such? Shameful if you do as well as being completely wrong.
I always get a good belly laugh observing those self-righteous people who throw stones from their glass houses, completely oblivious to their own guilt in accusing others of doing what they are themselves guilty of doing. LOL.
DocVerit or DV: You wrote: “Misericordia et misera does indeed grant to the SSPX the ongoing and Catholic Priests Only Canonical Faculty…”
Glad we partially agree on that. “On-going” because it’s based on the on-going Canon law of the Church. “…grant to the SSPX” precisely because it’s backed up by Canon law.
However, you seem to have purposely ignored the following:
“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.”
But it’s all right. I don’t think it matters much, really. I don’t know of any non-Catholic denomination with sacramental confession, do you?
By the way, thank you for mentioning Fr. Z in your posts. I have a very high regard for him and the things he writes. He was the one who started the old “Catholic On-Line” forum (now defunct) to which I participated regularly.
Thanks again and God bless you and your loved ones this holy season.
” I don’t know of any non-Catholic denomination with sacramental confession,”
The Orthodox churches do.
To SOL:
You wrote; “The Orthodox churches do.”
Have sacramental confession.
Thank you. I don’t know much about Orthodox churches, so I appreciate this information. Thank you again.
Your post didn’t have a reply button, so I had to link this to mine. But I do want to express my appreciation.
God bless you and your loved ones this holy season.
Margarita:
Give it up. Neither I nor anyone else regarding the SSPX is ignoring the emergency powers granted to others outside the Church, so canon law 844 has absolutely nothing to do with our position and the status of the SSPX that goes beyond emergency powers.
As I have tried to make clear to you and others, the current status of the SSPX is not about the emergency powers that all validly ordained priests inside and outside the Church possess. Please carefully review my comments to see why, and stop making the false claim that I and others are ignoring canon 844. It does not apply in any way to the current canonical status enjoyed by the SSPX that is not based on canon 844.
Be sure to read the blog/article of Fr. Z I previously referenced.
Margarita, you are welcome. G*d bless you and yours
I do not know which is the greater surprise, that the SSPX can undertake such a project in these times, or the complete lack of visible tattoos on the construction crew:
Video: (2 min. 3 sec.)
SSPX NEWS March 1st 2023 – The Altar is Installed – Building The Immaculata
By their fruits shall they be judged. It seems the SSPX have fruit in spades. Where I attend, it’s typical to see 3 generations and our chapel is always full for the High Mass.
“Where I attend, it’s typical to see 3 generations and our chapel is always full for the High Mass.”
Yes. That’s the practical answer to the question.
Compare the fertility rates of SSPX & other traditionally minded Catholics vs the rates of those in most every sector of Western culture. Italy, Spain, etc. demographically are dying on the vine. And the US & Canada would be right there too without immigration.
It’s a no brainer who will be present in significant numbers in the coming generations & who won’t. But that’s not saying who will be retained within a particular faith community. That’s a trickier part of the puzzle. Providing support & real community for young families is critical.
That’s a beautiful church under construction. Where is the location please?
Another, simpler thing to tie it all up that has already been said in briefer form- it is up to those claiming the schism to produce positive, conclusive proof, of a Church statement of such, which is what is lacking, certainly since 2009. Bartel claims that BXVI and Francis confirmed and renewed a claim of schism, but there is no evidence/citation for it, but the contrary, as dealt with below. We have to look as much to what has not been said. The Holy See seems to have been very careful not to use the label of schism since 2009. And a declaration that someone is in schism needs to be explicit and direct, including who is involved e.g., “persons a & b committed the schismatical act of x;” “all clerics considering themselves members of the sspx are in schism;” “the group called the sspx, properly consisting of clerics, is considered to be in schism.” One cannot arrive at a conclusion of schism by piecing together snippets here and there that make no mention of it, as though people are using “dog whistles,” e.g., when it says they have no canonical status that’s really saying they’re in schism. Or, references to wanting the sspx to achieve full communion; but which implicitly indicate there is some degree of communion already. It does not say simply “communion” as though there was none, or that the efforts are to bring an end to a schism or some such language; and we can be sure the language was chosen very carefully.
The statement indicating schism is the initial one from 1988, regarding the individual bishops first involved, as having committed a schismatic act. The decree declaring schismatic acts also refers to the “schism of Levebre” as though personally, rather than to any group. It is also interesting that when the words movement or Church of the SSPX are used, there are no qualifying words of schismatic or schism. (One can discuss here the pertinence that the bishops were sanctioned as individuals, not as some corporate body.) One could still say there was schism declared in 1988, at least involving those individual bishops, but which was remedied in 2009. (Whether it also applied to every cleric who considered themselves a member of the sspx and thus of the sspx as a whole could be debated.)
Bartel claims that BXVI and Francis did not rescind and even confirmed this claim of schism, yet he provides no citation when he says so. On the contrary, the 2009 decree under BXVI expressly states that the 1988 decree no longer has juridic effects; which means that the schismatic acts and any schism invoked by the bishops is now presumed to no longer apply. The very fact the penalty was lifted/ex natura rei also confirms that the schismatic acts/tendencies had been judged to have ceased; and it was based upon the pledge of obedience to the Holy Father and such by the sspx bishops that it was done. (One could then argue whether it was inopportune to lift the sanctions if it was thought any possible schism was still present. One also gets into a mess to contend that the sspx bishops were being dishonest when they pledged their obedience prior to the lifting of the penalty.) Very importantly, this also means there would need to be a new, distinct declaration of schism/schismatic acts and accompanying penalties post-2009, which certainly has not occurred. It may be that they were thought to be schismatic from 1988 to 2009, but that would have ceased in 2009.
Otherwise, neither Benedict nor the accompanying retraction decree in 2009 even mention schism, schismatic, etc. as far as I can see; and it’s inexplicable he didn’t just say so if it was the case, as he was precisely describing the status of the sspx. We can be sure that was not just some accident. (And not having canonical status or having illicit ministry leads to no necessary inference as to being in schism. There are many groups and institutions that have no such status, if even because of their own choosing. That does not infer anything negative about them. There is now also a problem with even claiming illicit ministry, as Francis has explicitly stated otherwise at least with certain acts of ministry.)
As for Francis, the sole reference as far as I can see he makes to schism, is found in the accompaniment letter to Mis. et Misera, which seems to clearly refer to the situation in 1988, not to the present, mentioning it in relation to the reason for the indults of 1984 and 1988. Otherwise, that’s the only reference and there is certainly no declaration or confirmation of schismatic acts or schism or other description of the sspx’s status. And by the 2009 revocation, Francis could not even be confirming such, as it no longer was in effect to be confirmed.
So, it’s incumbent on those claiming schism to produce the Church declaration, certianly post-2009, stating clearly and expressly that the sspx is in such; and which would most probably, if not certainly, have to include a new declaration of schismatic acts and new penalties/excommunication; but the latter certainly has not happened, and the former also does not seem to exist.
Thank you for your comment, Chris, but please give me the courtesy of at least reading the sources I have provided. Your reply is full of unsubstantiated claims and poor scholarship. One example should suffice:
Chris: “It is also interesting that when the words movement or Church of the SSPX are used, there are no qualifying words of schismatic or schism.”
Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei §5 “In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”
Give me just one papal document issued between 1988-2023 reconciling the SSPX and giving them the right to exercise their ministry in the Church, like you can find for the FSSP. Just one. It should be easy to find, it would have been all over the news.
You are setting up a straw man argument because you maintain that the SSPX is in need of reconciliation, which they are not. Nevertheless, here is one example of the document you seek. It has been posted many times by others. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html
Did you even read my essay? In the same apostolic letter you are referring to, Pope Francis declares: “For the pastoral benefit of these faithful [who attend churches officiated by the SSPX], 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 be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”(Misericordia et misera, §12).
If the SSPX are not in need of reconciliation, why would they need to “strive for the recovery of full communion”? I would suggest you carefully read your sources before trying to refute someone with them.
My point is that your article is self-contradictory. You make the claim that the SSPX is in schism, and demand that WE furnish you with evidence that contradicts your baseless assertion, when in fact YOU cannot produce any official Church document that makes such a declaration of schism. You, on your own initiative, have decided that the irregular position of the SSPX amounts to schism. The claim is both stupid and libelous. I am surprised that CWR gave space this old, specious argument.
Some good work, Timothy. Misericordia et misera does indeed grant to the SSPX the ongoing and Catholic Priests Only Canonical Faculty (a crucial element ignored or perhaps not understood by Mr. Bartel and his fellow travelers; or they just don’t want to accept the ramifications of this reality so they try to “woke-spin” it into something it isn’t) to administer the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.
In particular, note how Pope Francis clearly states that people who attend the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X churches can not only validly receive sacramental absolution; they also do so licitly, which would not be the case if the priests of the SSPX remained in schism. The actual statement of the Pope in this regard reads in pertinent part as follows:
“…can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins.”
Of course, a validly ordained priest outside the Catholic Church can validly administer the sacrament of penance and reconciliation in emergency situations and other limited situations ONLY that are recognized by the Church, but liceity in this regard applies only to priests inside the Catholic Church. In stressing the licit character of the specific and for Catholics only quality of the canonical faculty granted to the SSPX, this makes it substantively different than the emergency power enjoyed by validly ordained priests outside the Catholic Church.
And so by first granting the “one year” canonical faculty reserved only for Catholic priests, and then extending it indefinitely, Pope Francis supplied a limited but very real canonical status to the SSPX.
Next, Pope Francis specifically mentions his trust in the good will of the priests of the SSPX to “strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church….”
Bartel et al. wrongly interpret this part of the Pope’s statement as an affirmation that the SSPX remains outside the Church, but in light of the grant of the aforementioned faculty for Catholic priests only, the hoped-for full communion cannot be honestly interpreted as meaning the SSPX priests remain in a state of schism. Instead, they do not exercise full membership or full communion with the Church, but they do exercise a limited and less than full communion with the Church that no other validly ordained priest in any church outside the Catholic Church can enjoy.
Now, if the Pope did not grant the VALID and LICIT canonical faculty reserved only for Catholic priests to the SSPX, then a better argument could be made that the SSPX remains in schism (despite the canonical problems with this conclusion), but Pope Francis did grant that which can Only be granted to Catholic priests even if they are not in full communion with the Church. It is not, as Bartel et al. obtusely maintain that it’s “either full communion or no communion.” Understanding this reality with superior wisdom and an insight that Bartel can’t even dream of having (yet he felt compelled to criticize Bishop Schneider and suggests the bishop lacks understanding; what a crock), the good Bishop Schneider has correctly stated that the SSPX is not currently in full communion with the Church, but neither are they outside the Church in a status of schism. Also with a much better spirit than Bartel has demonstrated in many of his comments, the good Bishop Schneider has expressed the beautiful Catholic sentiment of hoping that the SSPX will soon be granted full communion with the Catholic Church that it belongs to even while not in full communion at this time.
To all honest readers of CWR, the following is a key understanding to have and maintaine when examining the issue of the status of the SSPX:
Regardless of what Bartel et al. may claim to the contrary, what Pope Francis did in granting a canonical faculty to the SSPX priests that cannot be granted to any priest in schism makes it completely impossible for the SSPX to be in a state of schism. Even if the status of the SSPX was a state of schism prior to the act of Pope Francis, his action automatically changed its status at the time and continuing to this day to being one of a limited but not full communion with the Church. A Pope does not have the authority to grant a canonical and ongoing, non-emergency faculty to any priest outside the Church. To irrationally maintain that the SSPX is in schism is to simultaneously and also irrationally maintain that the Pope did what he simply cannot do.
Remarkable. For the reasons set forth in my response to Timothy, it is you who needs to engage in a more careful reading of things, and you also need to recognize the reality of Church law pertaining to the actions of Pope Francis and what his actions can only mean regarding the current canonical status of the SSPX; not what you want his actions to mean, which is simply not possible.
You also need to come to grips with the reality that it is not the false dichotomy of either ‘full communion or no communion’ that you insist upon. The SSPX does indeed need to work on regaining full communion since they only possess a limited or incomplete communion known as an irregular status, which is not schism, and as more fully explained in my response to Timothy.
You have also completely butchered what Misericordia et misera sets forth while convincing yourself that your bogus interpretation of the document is correct, and hence your overconfident and sarcastic challenge to some (including yours truly) to provide at least one document that supports our position because you simply could not fathom how your interpretation of Misericordia et misera could possibly be in error, which indeed it most certainly is. As the saying goes, you have been hoisted by your own petards and rightly so. So much for your self-proclaimed scholarship and application of resources while wrongly taking cheap shots at all others who disagree with your limited and erroneous interpretations.
As I have stated elsewhere, good people hope and pray that the SSPX priests will soon move past their “limited priestly membership” granted to them by Pope Francis in granting them a valid and licit faculty that only Catholic priest can receive to regain full priestly membership or full communion with the Church. Sadly, others insist that the SSPX priests are still in schism even though this is absolutely impossible in light of the specific kind of faculty Pope Francis granted to them that can Only be granted to Catholic priests inside the Church.
If you can’t take the heat, DocVerit, you shouldn’t be engaging in controversy. You obviously have not hesitated to dish it out generously yourself. I called into question your sources and arguments and challenged you to do better; I did not insult you or question your motivations or wisdom. Please reread your comments directed at me and see if you have shown the same courtesy.
I wrote this essay because I care deeply about the people in the SSPX, which includes my dearest friends and life mentors. Bishop Schneider is doing a great disservice to these souls by leading them to believe that they are no longer in a dangerous state of separation from the Church, since according to him they have been “de facto” recognized as Catholics in good standing. I have demonstrated from both the official sources and the historical context that this is imprudently jumping to conclusions, as can be seen from the words of the Pope Francis himself. Telling me my interpretation is wrong disproves nothing.
You have stated your “absolutely certain” opinion on the SSPX ad nauseam in this comment section, but you have failed to provide any convincing or substantive proof of your assertions. Whether the SSPX is in partial communion or none at all is irrelevant; it is not in full communion and needs to return to unity with the Church, not according to me, but according to the vicars of Christ, from Paul VI to Francis. The most charitable thing we can do is to alert the SSPX and its adherents to their situation, and to call out anyone who is encouraging them to persist in their error.
My challenge to you still stands: to prove that the SSPX is no longer in schism, you must provide a papal document issued between 1988-2023 reconciling the SSPX to the Church, explicitly giving them the right to to ordain and incardinate priests and to exercise ALL of their ministries, like you can find for the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. If you cannot do something as simple as this, all of your points about the SSPX are moot, no matter how emphatically stated.
I feel I can clarify this for Kennedy Hall. Benedict XVI is saying not to oppose the New Rite in principle. He is not commanding Traditional Rite priests and bishops to celebrate mass in both ways all the time or as a qualifier.
A basic distinction is missing from these issues in general and their discussions, the difference between obedience of faith and the fidelity to the Pope and hierarchy; and understanding them properly. It’s 2 different things and one of the problems going is that Pope Francis actions combined with the widespread split debate, together lend confusions into the reasoning that proceeds with the obedience and the fidelity.
More again: as I’ve maintained at other times, people with good sense are needed who can contribute to the winning integrity for the New Rite that is subject to so much abuse through error and rebellion.
Editor, my comment yesterday that would appear just about here, is worthy of being posted as it fits very well to this; and I ask that you please do not withhold it. It can’t hurt Bartel or his group or his advisors and it would do a lot of good to everyone like Hall who show their ample good faith and desire to serve and to improve. I hope you publish it. Maybe you can do the two concomitantly.
‘ However, in Benedict’s letter that accompanied the Motu Proprio, he wrote something that is quite confusing. In the same paragraph where he spoke of the sacredness of the Old Rite, he then wrote the following: “Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books” (emphasis added).
Hold on a tick. What does this mean?
Well, if we take Benedict at his word, at least in this instance, this will mean that traditional priests are not in “full communion” with the Church if they will not say the New Mass. ‘
https://www.crisismagazine.com/opinion/is-anyone-in-full-communion-with-rome
It’s very sad that Bartel wants to try to emplace disorientations and trip wires; suggest feelings of distrust and reasons for disavowal; and churn up sense of separation, meaninglessness, futility. What’s going on here. Where is Benedict or anyone lifting excommunication to put the non-excommunicate / SSPX into schism.
‘ 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? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?
…..
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? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. ‘
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
Hi Elias,
I had a comment disappear somewhere around the same time frame. A message about site maintenance and some other ‘slow’ functions at CWR happened congruently. Perhaps your article got lost….I doubt that Olson et al. would have purposely withheld your articles since you display more courtesy and civility than others.
Thank you Meiron. I don’t have it with me right now but for the moment I can give the idea.
I think Mr. Bartel should want for the happy good outcome for SSPX as he experienced for his own vocation. And whatever involvement he might seek should express that.
That in Christ will heal his own negative encounters.
Also I suggested that even though so many feel people are at odds in this and that with Pope Francis, it can’t make sense having them get stamped papers declaring “not schismatic”!
This is my original post March 23, 2023 at 10:27 am.
>> Bartel, in view of the sensitivity affecting everyone who does not have a stamped paper saying he or she is “not in schism”, SSPX among them; why didn’t you write about SSPX according to their virtues and viability and the hope they have in our Lord. In such wise as you would generate light not heat to edify SSPX and all and sundry besides. And gauge from the feedback how far short you had fall of the mark.
Your not having a vocation to SSPX is not a call to arms against them you know. <<
http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_archbishop_lefebvre_excommunicated.htm
Wasn’t Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated?
(for consecrating bishops unlawfully)
June 29, 1987
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, experiencing failing health, aware of his episcopal duty to pass on the Catholic Faith and seeing no other way of assuring the continued ordination of truly Catholic priests, decided to consecrate bishops and announced that, if necessary, he will do so even without the pope’s permission.
June 17, 1988
Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, officially warned the Archbishop that, in virtue of canon 1382 (1983 Code of Canon Law), he and the bishops consecrated by him would be excommunicated for proceeding without pontifical mandate and thereby infringing the laws of sacred discipline.
June 30, 1988
Archbishop Lefebvre, together with Bishop de Castro Mayer, consecrated four bishops.
July 1, 1988
Cardinal Gantin declared the threatened excommunication (according to canon 1382) to have been incurred. He also called the consecrations a schismatic act and declared the corresponding excommunication (canon 1364 §1), as well as threatening anyone supporting the consecrations with excommunication because of “schism”.
July 2, 1988
In Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the pope repeated Cardinal Gantin’s accusation of schismatic mentality and threatened generalized excommunications (cf. question 12).
Now, 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:[1]
if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),
and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties[2] (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).
*”The state of necessity, as it is explained by jurists, is a state in which the necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them.” (Is Tradition Excommunicated? p. 26)
Footnotes:
1 And yet objectively there is. (Cf. Is Tradition Excommunicated? pp.27-36)
2 Excommunication for unlawful consecrations (canon 1382) or schism (canon 1364) are of this kind.
No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 70). Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he was bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the consecrations (Cf. the Sermon of June 30, 1988, and Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 136). Hence, even if he had been wrong, there would be no subjective sin.
Most importantly, positive law is at the service of the natural and eternal law and ecclesiastical law is at that of the divine law (principle 8). No “authority,” [principle 9] can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments. No “law,” can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. With Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he could with his God-given episcopal powers to guarantee its preservation. This was his duty as a bishop.
The Church’s approving the SSPX (question 2) allow it what it needs for its own preservation. This includes the service of bishops who will guarantee to maintain Catholic Tradition.
Sam,
Your arguments (and Meuli’s) are probably the reasons why the excommunications were lifted.
However, Pope Benedict, in his Letter to Catholic Bishops (on the remission of excommunication of the four bishops installed by Mons. Lefebvre) dated March 10, 2009, maintains SSPX has no canonical status with the Church and exercises no legitimate ministry within the Church.
(Pope Francis’ granting faculty to hear confessions to SSPX priests does not abrogate Benedict’s letter because such faculty is available to any priest (including non-Catholics) whose denomination has sacramental confession during cases of emergency, when a penitent is in danger of death, or special circumstances such as Pope Francis’ regard for the Year of Mercy. It does not mean Francis’ granting of this faculty removes SSPX’s non-canonical status.)
I am not a canonist, BTW, but that’s how I understand Pope Benedict’s letter, Pope Francis’ “Misericordia et misera” (which goes beyond the Year of Mercy) and Bartel’s article, to which I agree.
do you believe this is the same as still being in schism, as the OP declares?
Yes.
Sam: “do you believe this is the same as still being in schism, as the OP declares?”
Yes, I do. I agree with the TOP.
I think the difference between non-canonical status and schism is only a matter of time. The more you stay non-canonical, the likely you become schismatic. And it’s been a long, long time. So…
The canonist Cathy Cardini defines schism as not simply a refusal to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or/ of commmunion with members of the Church subject to him, but ‘detrectatio’ – which would indicate an attitude more long-lasting than just a momentary denial.”
The Church has bent over backwards for many years trying to get SSPX back into the fold, but they turned up their noses. They were warned against Mons. Lefebvre’s plan of consecrating bishops illegally, but still he went through with it. He claimed it was out of necessity. His definition of “necessity” was quite subjective and only for the benefit of his non-canonical faction to continue producing illegal bishops and perpetuate its illegal priesthood. Did the Vatican ever agree to Lefebvre’s definition of “necessity?” What Lefebvre did was not just an act of disobedience but outright rebellion. If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck…
Pope Benedict XVI, in his Letter to Catholic Bishops, points out the way for SSPX to get back to the fold is to recognize Vatican II, which is a valid and legal council of the Church. As long as they refuse to accept Vatican II, SSPX continues to be in rebellion. And it looks like they will never accept it. It is a violence against the doctrine of unity of the Church.
The Venerable Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, in a letter to a woman named “Barbara” in the 1980s determined SSPX to be in schism even then. The letter was answered in an SSPX website, but instead of pointing out where Bishop Sheen went wrong, the response simply attacks the Church for liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo Mass. Liturgical abuses are not a doctrine of Vatican II. They may be a very serious disciplinary matter, but not Vatican II doctrinal – not a valid reason to justify wholesale non-acceptance of Vatican II. Vatican II is doctrine.
IMHO, SSPX is right on the path of the so-called “Old Catholic Church,” which started as illegal but valid (their priests were validly ordained), but over the years, they become schismatic. Same case with the numerous bishops and “independent” churches that Abp. Thuc consecrated – most of them challenge the papacy. It’s a question of doctrine, not discipline.
The canonist Cathy Cardini says that disobedience and dissent do not automatically involve schism unless they’re accompanied by an intention to challenge lawful authority. Well, Vatican II is lawful authority and has been challenged – and still being challenged by SSPX.
Cardini also says it is also necessary to examine the intentions and motives for the act of disobedience. “An important point which is directly relevant to our discussion here is that Archbishop Lefebvre was DECLARED TO BE IN SCHISM not simply because he violated the law (which unfortunately happens all the time) but because by his particular action he showed deliberate disregard for the authority of the Pope, who alone can decide who can be consecrated bishop.
“In the process the Vatican determined that Lefebvre removed himself from full communion with the Catholic Church. We need to remember that Vatican officials (and even Pope John Paul II at least once) are said to have spoken directly with Archbishop Lefebvre even before the episcopal consecrations in an attempt to dissuade him – so they knew his mindset and motivations for his actions,” Cardini writes.
Pope Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunications in a Letter to Bishops dated March 10, 2009, but he clearly says it does not remove SSPX’s non-canonical status. Until they recognize and accept Vatican II, they remain in schism.
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2021/06/03/when-does-disobedience-constitute-schism/
https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/even-sheen-called-it-schism
Margarita says: “I think the difference between non-canonical status and schism is only a matter of time. The more you stay non-canonical, the likely you become schismatic.”
So which is it , non canonical status is or is not the same as schism?
You appear to contradict yourself.
I do agree with Bartel that SSPX is in schism. Non-canonical means schism. Please read canonist Cathy Cardini. I’ve quoted her in my response to you.
Cardini says Schism is not simply a “refusal to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or/ of commmunion with members of the Church subject to him, but ‘detrectatio’ – which would indicate an attitude more long-lasting than just a momentary denial.”
Cardini says “Archbishop Lefebvre was DECLARED TO BE IN SCHISM not simply because he violated the law (which unfortunately happens all the time) but because by his particular action he showed deliberate disregard for the authority of the Pope, who alone can decide who can be consecrated bishop.”
“In the process the Vatican determined that Lefebvre removed himself from full communion with the Catholic Church. We need to remember that Vatican officials (and even Pope John Paul II at least once) are said to have spoken directly with Archbishop Lefebvre even before the episcopal consecrations in an attempt to dissuade him – so they knew his mindset and motivations for his actions.”
Pope Benedict XVI has shown SSPX how to get back into the fold, but they ignored him. Until they recognize and accept Vatican II, they remain in schism.
So Mr. Bartel, Ven. Sheen, etc. are correct. I agree, SSPX is in schism.
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2021/09/16/when-is-it-okay-to-go-to-an-sspx-mass/
Within it this Cathy canonist states the society isn’t in schism.
“Lefebvre made the decision to consecrate 4 bishops and acccording to the vatican hereby engaged in a schismatic act.”(Not schism mind you, but one singular act).
Second, “… but on the other hand , at least they can truthfully say…and the church has ALWAYS refrained from declaring the entire sspx to be in a state of schism.
Third, the paragraph beginning with NEXT: “provided…she states the sspx may not be in schism but their canonical status is irregular…”
Fourth, her last paragraph suggests sspx has not formally been declared to be in schism.
It is obvious then that canonist Cathy doesn’t really say they are definitely in schism but an irregular canonical status. Which means schism is not the same as non canonical status.
This suggests the church has not condemned of schism the society as bartel and you have made painfully obvious.
Some very scholarly work, Sam. The work of the primary article author is full of many holes as I and others have pointed out (alas, I have completely refuted his most recent comments directed toward me, but he is being shielded from them so he can maintain his facade), and some commenters, even after having the game-changing non-emergency nature of the granting of the faculties by Francis to the SSPX fully explained to them, simply refuse to accept the objective truth and continue to wrongly and bizarrely insist that the regular canonical and non-emergency faculty to hear confession that is Not available to any priests in schism is Not the same thing as an emergency power enjoyed by all validly ordained priests in such circumstances, but they and others continue to make this false claim, and to heck with the truth.
Your more scholarly and insightful addition to this issue in opposition to those who prefer the false narrative is greatly appreciated.
Hey Doc. I just copied from the sspx site. None of that was my input. I am a newbie at this but i do recognize the trajectory of the mainline church and the society’s role it will play.
There is a lot of “petitio principii” on this text. It comes from the first paragraph and multiplies itself as the petitio principii sustains the other arguments as a premise.
The SSPX doesn’t “deny the authority of the Church” or nothing like that. In fact, they arguments are about the PARTICULAR magisterium and disciplinal laws that proceeds from the Vatican II teachings, which aren’t made in the traditional catholic way; in fact, it’s a complex doctrinal question, which is still very discussed and that, like SSPX or not, wasn’t formally defined, and is not simple as the author express in a very pedant way.
It really looks like a people that don’t know the work of the Father Alvaro Calderón, or the Father Gleize, or the work of the dominicains of Avrille. To speak against what SSPX tells about Church authority, or why they acts as they act, you have to know what they say about it, and answer this, not what you think that they say. This text does nothing but attacks an false SSPX version.
Anyway, it’s fun how the hypocrisy appears. The Bishop responsible for evaluate the SSPX seminary like Dom Athanasius know less than you about the canonical situation of the SSPX? The Pope know less than you, to let an Bishop lives with him? Pope Francis is letting the Bishop lives in mortal sin? You should write it to him, because, for you, he probably also in mortal sin, don’t you think? And it’s really funny how you, as you accuse others, only looks to things that agree with you, ignoring a lot of particular magisterium acts or taking it as something that doesn’t goes against your thoughts…
Anyway, above it all, the SSPX canonical situation is a new question in the Church, that rises above anything that happened before, and a lot of high hierarchical clergy disagree with each other about it. If you have fear of the SSPX or something like that, and prefer X or Y, okay, but accuse another Catholics of schismatics, even when Bishops and THE POPE didn’t say it, is not a charity act. Think about it, and read the SSPX theologian books about the question of the Vatican two authority, refutes them (as nobody does until today) and, then, come writing again.
sam and Guilherme do Valle:
SSPX is neither a unique nor a new case. It has happened before with the “Old Catholic Church” that went into schism the longer they stayed away. It has happened with the many “independent” churches that broke away “temporarily” but didn’t come back, despite the Church asking them to.
(I am Filipino and the one example I can think of is the so-called “Philippine Catholic Independent Church” otherwise called “Aglipayan,” founded by Bishop Aglipay in late 18th century in rebellion against Spanish church authorities, but vowed to maintain obedience to the Pope.) The more they stay away, the harder their stance against coming back.
You commented on what the canonist Cathy Cardini says about SSPX, but you purposely ignored these parts of what she says:
“Schism is not simply a ‘refusal to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or/ of communion with members of the Church subject to him, but ‘detrectatio’ (DETRECTATIO) – which would indicate an attitude MORE LONG-LASTING than just a momentary denial.
“Archbishop Lefebvre was DECLARED TO BE IN SCHISM not simply because he violated the law (which unfortunately happens all the time) but because by his particular action he showed deliberate disregard for the authority of the Pope, who alone can decide who can be consecrated bishop.
“In the process, the Vatican determined that Lefebvre removed himself from full communion with the Catholic Church. We need to remember that Vatican officials (and even Pope John Paul II at least once) are said to have spoken directly with Archbishop Lefebvre even before the episcopal consecrations in an attempt to dissuade him – so they knew his mindset and motivations for his actions.”
If SSPX is not in schism, why the need to be reconciled with the Church?
Click on the link below and see why and how SSPX in Campos, Brazil got reconciled:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4141
you missed the canonist’s point: she could not determine their status as schismatic. Your point was that she ‘nailed’ it for you and your position and you failed to recognize it.
Please reconsider, k?
The letter (below) by the Venerable Bishop Fulton J. Sheen seems prophetic.
(And with this, my last post, I wish to be excused from this forum in view of the coming Holy Week. Thank you, everyone, for such a lively discussion. May the Lord bless all of us this most holy season! Love, Margarita)
September 21, 1978
Dear Barbara:
I thank you for your kind letter and I admire you as the mother of eight small children. I am sure you are busy, but happy.
If you have any influence on your friend I would beg you to influence her to leave the so-called Society of Saint Pius X. This group has no ecclesiastical approval, and indeed, it can lead her and possibly her family into schism and even heresy.
The Vatican Council approved the updating of the Liturgy and amongst the changes were those recommended for the Mass. The changes made by Pope Paul VI were not doctrinal changes, they merely changed from Latin to the vernacular. There have been many changes in the Mass down through the centuries.
The Lord never said Mass in Latin; He used the language of the time. Moreover, the change in translation does not alter the meaning of the text. I am always looking for translations that make the Scriptures more understandable and clear.
Since I never write to anyone unless they have written to me I shall not write to Mrs. Richardon. I beg of you to tell her that she should withdraw from that schismatical sect as soon as possible, or suffer the consequence of possibly finding herself outside the Church.
God love you!
†Fulton J. Sheen
Margarita,
I note the 1978 date of the good and venerable Bishop Sheen’s letter. A lot of water has evaporated, condensed and, and fallen into the Tiber since then.
Since 1978, excommunications have been declared and lifted against the four ‘schismatically consecrated’ bishops, two involved popes have died, as has the founder of the ‘schismatic’ Society. The current pope has granted faculties to priests in the Society to administer sacraments, and the Eucharist confected at their Masses is VALID while not lawful.
You surely are excused from responding to me. But I wonder What purpose you aim to achieve by adding this rather dated and questionably relevant jot to your magnum opus.
Can you provide a reliable source for this letter, in other words a scanned copy of original. If as it seems highly unlikely that Abp Sheen wrote this letter, then please retract such propaganda & manipulations. Otherwise you risk the sin of spreading lies & even worse calumny. I certainly don’t think that it’s worth that. I look forward to this reliable source.
General Basic Public Knowledge:
Who founded the Lutherans? Martin Luther.
Who founded the Christian Scientists? Mary Baker Eddy.
Who founded the Mormon religion? Joseph Smith.
Who founded the Catholic Church? Jesus Christ. That’s the true Church.
Who founded the SSPX’s so-called “Traditional Catholicism?” Marcel Lefebvre. He died excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The SSPX doesn’t have the four marks, i.e. One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. It will one day be called the Lefebvrist Church.
SSPX bears the four marks in as much as the Church herself already put SSPX on the path in reconciliation; and SSPX sustains a lively hope. The four marks remind me of the four living creatures John spoke about, allowing us to understand that these are not mere badges but the unfolding life of worship.
Cardinal Burke makes an excellent point, that paternal care is needed since the SSPX has been in a sort of “hypostatic” or retention condition. The other side to this is that their filial gifts belong to the Church and the Holy See mustn’t be as blockade ( -or bad doctor/quack ).
There is something else we shouldn’t miss, coming through from the Divine Providence. It is the same hope SSPX has carried with them during their excommunication.
I pray for them to our Lady Redemptrix.
Cardinal Burke on SSPX – Catholic News Service – Jun 15, 2012 – YOUTUBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRcoaytPCa0
Judging from the large response to this article, and considering its content, I hope that the editors will allow someone, such as Kennedy Hall, to present an alternative point of view, in the interests of truth and honest debate. I don’t think we are getting the whole truth here. Note, I am not SSPX. I also think that the canon law issues, and statements of members of the Roman Curia on SSPX, are not entirely even.