Did Archbishop Mueller say that the SSPX is in schism?

[GloriaMaria]

In a recent Italian interview which was picked up by the NCR, the head of the CDF says the following:

Society of St. Pius X
The interview continued with a brief discussion of the Society of St. Pius X, which was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970 to form priests, as a response to what he described as errors that had crept into the Church following the Second Vatican Council. Its relations with the Holy See became strained in 1988, when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without the permission of Pope John Paul II.
The illicit episcopal ordinations resulted in the five being excommunicated, though, in 2009, Benedict XVI, acting through Cardinal Giovanni Re, remitted the automatic excommunication from the four surviving bishops. After that time, doctrinal discussions between the society and Rome were conducted, until the discussions effectively broke down in 2012.
Asked about the position of the Society of St. Pius X, **Archbishop Müller said that while “the canonical excommunication” was revoked, “the sacramental one remains, de facto, for the schism: because they have removed themselves from communion with the Church.”
**“Having said that, we do not close the door, ever, and invite them to reconcile. But they also must change their approach, accepting the conditions of the Catholic Church and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion of belonging [to it].”

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/cdf-head-discusses-the-sspx-liberation-theology-and-divorced-remarried-cath/#ixzz2pQucivra

If it is a Schism, can we speak of the SSPX as Catholic? Can someone explain the difference between a Canonical excommunication and a defacto Sacramental excommunication? Does this statement from the Archbishop provide a new insight into the standing of the SSPX?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

The SSPX have willfully placed themselves in schism for years. Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict, devoted many years to trying to heal this schism. Saying publicly that they were not really in schism, and lifting the well deserved excommunications was all a part of this effort. The SSPX are operating their own church in open opposition to the Catholic Church and it is going to take a conversion to reconcile them.

 

[landon13]

The Society of St. Pius the Tenth is NOT and has NOT been in schism with the Holy Catholic Church. If it is in schism, please provide a document where they were censured or excommunicated from the Catholic Church…THERE IS NONE. Just because people thing being traditional is somehow a heresy nowadays, they think that anyone opposing modernism is schismatic.

SSPX is not in schism.

 

[JReducation]

In a recent Italian interview which was picked up by the NCR, the head of the CDF says the following:

Society of St. Pius X
The interview continued with a brief discussion of the Society of St. Pius X, which was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970 to form priests, as a response to what he described as errors that had crept into the Church following the Second Vatican Council. Its relations with the Holy See became strained in 1988, when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without the permission of Pope John Paul II.
The illicit episcopal ordinations resulted in the five being excommunicated, though, in 2009, Benedict XVI, acting through Cardinal Giovanni Re, remitted the automatic excommunication from the four surviving bishops. After that time, doctrinal discussions between the society and Rome were conducted, until the discussions effectively broke down in 2012.
Asked about the position of the Society of St. Pius X, **Archbishop Müller said that while “the canonical excommunication” was revoked, “the sacramental one remains, de facto, for the schism: because they have removed themselves from communion with the Church.”
**“Having said that, we do not close the door, ever, and invite them to reconcile. But they also must change their approach, accepting the conditions of the Catholic Church and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion of belonging [to it].”

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/cdf-head-discusses-the-sspx-liberation-theology-and-divorced-remarried-cath/#ixzz2pQucivra

If it is a Schism, can we speak of the SSPX as Catholic? Can someone explain the difference between a Canonical excommunication and a defacto Sacramental excommunication? Does this statement from the Archbishop provide a new insight into the standing of the SSPX?

One has to understand the wording here.

Let’s look at it in two parts.

In the first part, he refers to a sacramental excommunication. This means that the Society has no right to administer the sacraments. We already know this. They’ve been suspended for many years. They have been administering the sacraments illegally since they were suspended. If the law says that you must not administer the sacraments, then you are cut off in that regard.

The second part has to do with the Primacy. Pope Benedict said that the Society had broken with the Primacy, by not submitting to papal authority. This is a schismatic action. As long as you remain unresponsive to papal authority, you’re in a form of schism.

It’s not the same kind as a heretic. That’s a different situation. Schism means a break. As the Archbishop says, you have broken communion. In simple language, he’s repeating what has been said before. They are in an incomplete communion. While they believe what the faith teaches, they do not submit to the authority of the Pontiff.

This was said by Bishop Fellay a few months ago. He told a group that while the Society recognizes that Pope Francis is the legitimate successor of Peter, he should not be followed. That kind of statement is schismatic and it encourages others into schism. That’s problematic.

But there is nothing new here, other than the fact that the Archbishop is using legal language. For those who may be wondering, the Prefect of the CDF does have the papal authority to make such a statement. Unless it is recanted by the pope, it is a disciplinary statement that stands as is.

He does not need to make a formal statement on paper. The law does not require it of him. He can simply describe a situation. Not having read the original article, we can only assume that this is what he is doing. He’s just describing something, not adding anything new. But he’s describing it in legal language, which Pope Benedict avoided in the hopes of bringing the SSPX home.

 

[Denise1957]

If it is a Schism, can we speak of the SSPX as Catholic? Can someone explain the difference between a Canonical excommunication and a defacto Sacramental excommunication? Does this statement from the Archbishop provide a new insight into the standing of the SSPX?

I don’t think it’s been difinitively proven that the Society of St. Pius X is in formal schism. It was declared that Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecration of the four bishops was a schismatic act, but my understanding is that members of the SSPX themselves are not in formal schism. Here’s a statement by Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos from 2005:

“We are not confronted with a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without a pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect union is lacking - as was stated during the meeting with bishop Fellay - because communion does exist.”

Link to article that contains the above quote (last paragraph):

cardinalrating.com/cardinal_17__article_2883.htm

 

[godisgood77]

The answer is yes… Hopefully, the society will come back to the Church.

 

[GloriaMaria]

One has to understand the wording here.

Let’s look at it in two parts.

In the first part, he refers to a sacramental excommunication. This means that the Society has no right to administer the sacraments. We already know this. They’ve been suspended for many years. They have been administering the sacraments illegally since they were suspended. If the law says that you must not administer the sacraments, then you are cut off in that regard.

The second part has to do with the Primacy. Pope Benedict said that the Society had broken with the Primacy, by not submitting to papal authority. This is a schismatic action. As long as you remain unresponsive to papal authority, you’re in a form of schism.

It’s not the same kind as a heretic. That’s a different situation. Schism means a break. As the Archbishop says, you have broken communion. In simple language, he’s repeating what has been said before. They are in an incomplete communion. While they believe what the faith teaches, they do not submit to the authority of the Pontiff.

This was said by Bishop Fellay a few months ago. He told a group that while the Society recognizes that Pope Francis is the legitimate successor of Peter, he should not be followed. That kind of statement is schismatic and it encourages others into schism. That’s problematic.

But there is nothing new here, other than the fact that the Archbishop is using legal language. For those who may be wondering, the Prefect of the CDF does have the papal authority to make such a statement. Unless it is recanted by the pope, it is a disciplinary statement that stands as is.

He does not need to make a formal statement on paper. The law does not require it of him. He can simply describe a situation. Not having read the original article, we can only assume that this is what he is doing. He’s just describing something, not adding anything new. But he’s describing it in legal language, which Pope Benedict avoided in the hopes of bringing the SSPX home.

Thank you Brother! I have another question, which maybe you can help with. It is often said that one can fulfill one’s Sunday obligation at a chapel of the SSPX, out of love for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, if one does not submit to a schismatic mentality. If the Prefect of the CDF speaks of a sacramental excommunication, De Facto, would it stand to reason that this excommunication includes all the sacraments administered by the SSPX? Is the line the same? Could one still assist out of such love for the EF? Forgive me if it seems like I’m asking the same question twice.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think it’s been difinitively proven that the Society of St. Pius X is in formal schism.

Actually, a schism does not have to be proven. The Church has no obligation to prove it. She can simply state it. The statement has to come from the Holy See, which as we know is the curia. It’s not necessarily the pope. The pope can recant what the curia says. But until he does, the highest ranking person to speak has the last word. In this case it’s Archbishop Mueller.

It was declared that Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecration of the four bishops was a schismatic act, but my understanding is that members of the SSPX themselves are not in formal schism. Here’s a statement by Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos from 2005:

“We are not confronted with a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without a pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect union is lacking - as was stated during the meeting with bishop Fellay - because communion does exist.”

Link to article that contains the above quote (last paragraph):

cardinalrating.com/cardinal_17__article_2883.htm

In 2005, when Cardinal Hoyos wrote this, the situation was different. Things have happened, such as Bishop Fellay’s recent advice to people not to follow Pope Francis. That public statement is a schismatic statement. You can’t tell someone not to follow the pope unless the pope is inviting you to violate the commandments. If you make such a statement, you’re going to find that you’re communion is very fragile, if it even exists.

Thank you Brother! I have another question, which maybe you can help with. It is often said that one can fulfill one’s Sunday obligation at a chapel of the SSPX, out of love for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, if one does not submit to a schismatic mentality. If the Prefect of the CDF speaks of a sacramental excommunication, De Facto, would it stand to reason that this excommunication includes all the sacraments administered by the SSPX? Is the line the same? Could one still assist out of such love for the EF? Forgive me if it seems like I’m asking the same question twice.

Sure . . . let me try to do the best I can in a post, without going into a lot of theological mumbo jumbo.

Basically, every time that the deacons, priests and bishops of the Society celebrates any of the sacraments, OBJECTIVELY, they are committing a grave sin. A suspended cleric is not allowed to celebrate the sacraments. The problem here is that when the cleric says, “The law does not apply to me,” he’s putting himself outside of the law. If you place yourself outside of Church law, then you place yourself outside of the Church. In this case, the matter is sacraments. They are placing themselves outside of the laws that govern the sacraments. This is a sacramental excommunication. It’s not the Church who has done it to the individual, but the individual who places himself outside of the law has done it to himself. It is really up to the person to come back. The Church cannot force him.

Since the priest is validly ordained, the mass is illegal, but valid. A person who is Catholic and wants to attend mass in the Extraordinary Form and has no access to any other legal mass in the Extraordinary Form would be allowed to attend such a mass at one of the SSPX chapels.

How do people fall into a schismatic mindset? Which is what the Vatican has said all along. Well, we see it a lot right here on CAF. When people defend the SSPX over the CDF or over the pope himself, that’s a schismatic mindset. Basically, one is saying that the Church authorities are wrong and those in rebellion are right. What one has done is opted for a magisterium that is outside of the Church. When you opt for something outside of the Church over what the Church provides, that’s schismatic thinking.

Example. If the pope says that there is nothing wrong with Nostra Aetate, maybe it needs a little tweaking here or there, but it is well within the faith of the Church and represents the will of the Church, then the SSPX comes along and says that Nostra Aetate is all wrong, and I come along and say that the SSPX is right, what have I done?

I’ve made a choice to follow the guidance of the SSPX over that of the pope. I have now stepped onto a slippery slope. If I keep making choices in favor of the SSPX and opposed to the Holy See, then I am slowly drifting into a schismatic mindset, meaning that I’m here and the Holy See is there, but it is the Holy See that has to move toward me, not me toward the Holy See.

This is really complicated stuff to explain on a forum. I find that I can do much better in person in a Q & A. But that’s it in a nutshell.

I repeat, the highest authority to have spoken on the SSPX is Archbishop Mueller. Until and unless the Holy Father makes a statement to the contrary, we go with what the Archbishop has said.

We have to examine his words very carefully. When we do, we see that he has not said anything new. He’s just using legal terms, which everyone had avoided in the past. But Pope Benedict had already said that the Society has broken with the Primacy. What’s the difference between breaking with the Primacy of Peter and not being in communion with the Church, which is the way that Archbishop Mueller words it?

There really is not different. I think that they are very serious statements, not matter which way one cuts it. We have to pray that it is resolved soon. It’s not good for the Church or for the friends and priests of the SSPX. A feud within a family is always a lose lose situation. We have to remain open to trying again and again.

 

[sebastian1213]

I don’t think it’s been difinitively proven that the Society of St. Pius X is in formal schism. It was declared that Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecration of the four bishops was a schismatic act, but my understanding is that members of the SSPX themselves are not in formal schism. Here’s a statement by Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos from 2005:

“We are not confronted with a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without a pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect union is lacking - as was stated during the meeting with bishop Fellay - because communion does exist.”

Link to article that contains the above quote (last paragraph):

cardinalrating.com/cardinal_17__article_2883.htm

The Archbishop’s Consecration of for bishops was an act of disobedience, but not an excommunicatable offense. He acted out of what he thought was neccessity to preserve tradition as he had, if I am correct, sought permission from Rome to consecrate these bishops but kept running into a stone wall.

 

[sebastian1213]

Actually, a schism does not have to be proven. The Church has no obligation to prove it. She can simply state it. The statement has to come from the Holy See, which as we know is the curia. It’s not necessarily the pope. The pope can recant what the curia says. But until he does, the highest ranking person to speak has the last word. In this case it’s Archbishop Mueller.

In 2005, when Cardinal Hoyos wrote this, the situation was different. Things have happened, such as Bishop Fellay’s recent advice to people not to follow Pope Francis. That public statement is a schismatic statement. You can’t tell someone not to follow the pope unless the pope is inviting you to violate the commandments. If you make such a statement, you’re going to find that you’re communion is very fragile, if it even exists.

Sure . . . let me try to do the best I can in a post, without going into a lot of theological mumbo jumbo.

Basically, every time that the deacons, priests and bishops of the Society celebrates any of the sacraments, OBJECTIVELY, they are committing a grave sin. A suspended cleric is not allowed to celebrate the sacraments. The problem here is that when the cleric says, “The law does not apply to me,” he’s putting himself outside of the law. If you place yourself outside of Church law, then you place yourself outside of the Church. In this case, the matter is sacraments. They are placing themselves outside of the laws that govern the sacraments. This is a sacramental excommunication. It’s not the Church who has done it to the individual, but the individual who places himself outside of the law has done it to himself. It is really up to the person to come back. The Church cannot force him.

Since the priest is validly ordained, the mass is illegal, but valid. A person who is Catholic and wants to attend mass in the Extraordinary Form and has no access to any other legal mass in the Extraordinary Form would be allowed to attend such a mass at one of the SSPX chapels.

How do people fall into a schismatic mindset? Which is what the Vatican has said all along. Well, we see it a lot right here on CAF. When people defend the SSPX over the CDF or over the pope himself, that’s a schismatic mindset. Basically, one is saying that the Church authorities are wrong and those in rebellion are right. What one has done is opted for a magisterium that is outside of the Church. When you opt for something outside of the Church over what the Church provides, that’s schismatic thinking.

Example. If the pope says that there is nothing wrong with Nostra Aetate, maybe it needs a little tweaking here or there, but it is well within the faith of the Church and represents the will of the Church, then the SSPX comes along and says that Nostra Aetate is all wrong, and I come along and say that the SSPX is right, what have I done?

I’ve made a choice to follow the guidance of the SSPX over that of the pope. I have now stepped onto a slippery slope. If I keep making choices in favor of the SSPX and opposed to the Holy See, then I am slowly drifting into a schismatic mindset, meaning that I’m here and the Holy See is there, but it is the Holy See that has to move toward me, not me toward the Holy See.

This is really complicated stuff to explain on a forum. I find that I can do much better in person in a Q & A. But that’s it in a nutshell.

I repeat, the highest authority to have spoken on the SSPX is Archbishop Mueller. Until and unless the Holy Father makes a statement to the contrary, we go with what the Archbishop has said.

We have to examine his words very carefully. When we do, we see that he has not said anything new. He’s just using legal terms, which everyone had avoided in the past. But Pope Benedict had already said that the Society has broken with the Primacy. What’s the difference between breaking with the Primacy of Peter and not being in communion with the Church, which is the way that Archbishop Mueller words it?

There really is not different. I think that they are very serious statements, not matter which way one cuts it. We have to pray that it is resolved soon. It’s not good for the Church or for the friends and priests of the SSPX. A feud within a family is always a lose lose situation. We have to remain open to trying again and again.

I’d imagine it is simply a question of whether or not that Tradition, in the Society’s sense of the word, (TLM etc) is reconcilable with the “new” Ordinary Form etc. (for lack of any other term) perspective, if you will. .

 

[sebastian1213]

Thank you Brother! I have another question, which maybe you can help with. It is often said that one can fulfill one’s Sunday obligation at a chapel of the SSPX, out of love for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, if one does not submit to a schismatic mentality. If the Prefect of the CDF speaks of a sacramental excommunication, De Facto, would it stand to reason that this excommunication includes all the sacraments administered by the SSPX? Is the line the same? Could one still assist out of such love for the EF? Forgive me if it seems like I’m asking the same question twice.

My understanding is that while the Vatican says that the sacraments of Confession and marriage are invalid that one can fulfill their Sunday obligation there and that they can receive the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar as long as they don’t develop the "schismatic’ mindset.

 

[JReducation]

The Archbishop’s Consecration of for bishops was an act of disobedience, but not an excommunicatable offense. He acted out of what he thought was neccessity to preserve tradition as he had, if I am correct, sought permission from Rome to consecrate these bishops but kept running into a stone wall.

It was an excommunicable offense.

There is a canon that says that if one acts contrary to the law, believing that there is an emergency, as the Archbishop had said, one is not excommunicated.

However, there is also a doctrine in the Church that says the Christ is the Supreme Lawgiver and the he deposits his law ONLY in the heart of Peter. Peter can make and change law. He can decide to whom the law applies.

When this situation came up, Bl. John Paul ruled that the above mentioned canon did not apply to the SSPX. He stated that he had no need to explain himself, because he is the successor of St. Peter and the voice of law. This was communicated to the Archbishop and the other new bishops by then Cardinal Ratzinger. They were denied the appeal and the excommunication was effective.

It was for this reason that Bishop Fellay has to file a formal request to have the excommunications lifted, which he did. I have never understood why the laity and some priests of the SSPX keep saying that there was no excommunication when the pope, who is the person who defines law, saw there was. Pope Paul VI had warned the Archbishop that this would happen and there would be no appeal. Pope John Paul followed through.

Pope John Paul did authorize the ordination of one bishop. But that name had to be submitted to the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and approved by the pope. This never happened. The Archbishop ordained without following directions. Some people believe that he was afraid that his candidate would be rejected. I have no idea, because I never met the man. He may have said this to his confidants.

In any case, the excommunication stands, because the pope said that the law that would have protected the Archbishop, did not apply to him. The pope has the power and right to do this. This is a doctrine of the Church that was clarified during the papacy of St. Boniface IV and later again by St.Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure.

I’d imagine it is simply a question of whether or not that Tradition, in the Society’s sense of the word, (TLM etc) is reconcilable with the “new” Ordinary Form etc. (for lack of any other term) perspective, if you will. .

It’s about doctrine. The Society must submit to the Primacy and accept that no one, not even the SSPX can correct others, can decide what is and what is not tradition, and no one can decide who is ordained or not ordained without proper authority. Bishops are only as good as their connection to the papacy. The College of the Apostles is always in Communion with Peter. Always submits to Peter.

It is one thing to be allowed to make one’s case before Peter, as did Paul and another to walk when Peter says “NO.” When you walk, you are breaking communion. If you believe that you’re not breaking communion, then your understanding of communion is faulty. Either way, you have a doctrinal issue that has to be resolved.

Finally, there is the issue of ecclesiology. There can be different opinions of what the Church should look like and what she should do first, second and third. This has always been the case. There can even be different opinions on the role of people in the Church. But there has to be a unified vision of what the Church is.

My understanding is that while the Vatican says that the sacraments of Confession and marriage are invalid that one can fulfill their Sunday obligation there and that they can receive the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar as long as they don’t develop the "schismatic’ mindset.

Yes, this is true. I explained this in my post above. One has to be very careful, because it’s very easy to get caught up on passion. These are issues about which people get very passionate. We have to understand these people, be merciful and patient with them, but not allow ourselves to get caught up in their passion to the point that we start saying the same things. I have to understand why they say what they say and I have to find a way to help them not feel that way without hurting them or offending them. If I let myself feel the same way, then we’re both going to drown in our passions.

We’re so complicated; aren’t we? Aren’t you glad that God understands us better than we understand ourselves? :yup:

 

[janeway529]

So, are SSPX breakaway groups, like the SSPV or sedevacantists in schism, or are they heretics?

 

[thistle]

So, are SSPX breakaway groups, like the SSPV or sedevacantists in schism, or are they heretics?

They are not heretics and they are not sedevacantists.

Their refusal to obey the Pope is a schismatic act.

 

[JReducation]

So, are SSPX breakaway groups, like the SSPV or sedevacantists in schism, or are they heretics?

The Archbishop’s words are very careful. We have to take them at face value. Observe how he says it and try not to think further.

they have removed themselves from communion with the Church.”
“Having said that, we do not close the door, ever, and invite them to reconcile. But they also must change their approach, accepting the conditions of the Catholic Church and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion of belonging [to it].”

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/cdf-head-discusses-the-sspx-liberation-theology-and-divorced-remarried-cath/#ixzz2pbFcyug5

"removed themselves from communion . . . "

They have made a choice, not the Church. The Church has not left them behind or outside. They choose to remain on their own.

“we do not close the door”

The Church wants them to come back

“change their approach”

They have to stop saying what they say and doing things the way the do them. For example, the statement made the Bishop Fellay about Pope Francis on the SSPX site. That was not a good idea.

“accepting the conditions of the Catholic Church . . .”

He feels that they have been given conditions and that they have rejected them. He’s not proposing to review or revise those conditions.

“conditions of the . . . ] and the Supreme Pontiff”

The pope has conditions of his own that are in addition to those of the universal Church. This is important, because the pope has the right to create conditions for communion.

“as the definitive criterion of belonging”

The words, for belonging are very important. One can only belong when one accepts these conditions.

He’s not saying that they are renegade, heretics, rogue, breakaway or whatever. He’s not putting labels on them and neither should we. We tend to put labels on people and things. Maybe its an American thing. We like labels. But Rome is allergic to labels.

Rome prefers to describe a thing. It’s choosing to describe the status of the SSPX as outside of communion with the Church. The key word is communion.

We don’t need to ask “Are they Catholic?” Rome is not interested in that question. From Rome’s perspective, only lay people ask that, not scholars. They mean lay as in non scholars, not as in laity. Rome’s approach is scholarly.

It makes no difference to Rome that one claims to be Catholic, if in Rome’s opinion I am not with Rome. Basically, for Rome, Catholic and being on the same page as the Vatican are inseparable.

 

[AlexV]

1. If you gather all the statements made by Vatican officials re: the SSPX, good luck trying to find a consistently applied, coherent analysis;
2. The word “schism” gets thrown around a lot these days. By some people’s definitions of schism, the majority of Catholics would fall into the schismatic category.
3. The Church was arguably better off in the days before instant communication, when every official’s statements were not immediately disseminated to the armchair canonists of the world.

 

[Denise1957]

My understanding is that while the Vatican says that the sacraments of Confession and marriage are invalid that one can fulfill their Sunday obligation there and that they can receive the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar as long as they don’t develop the "schismatic’ mindset.

This has been my understanding as well. I think it was Cardinal Hoyos who made the statement to this effect. I would think that if the SSPX were in schism, Catholics would not be advised that they can fulfill their Sunday obligation there.

Abp. Mueller stated that there is a de facto schism, but I take this to mean that while they aren’t in formal schism, the practical reality is like a schism. I would agree with this. But archbishop Lefebvre did not intend schism, nor did he intend to set up a counter church. That’s why SSPX places of worship are called chapels, not churches or parishes. and the area where a SSPX bishop has jurisdiction over SSPX priests are called districts, not dioceses. It’s not that I’m trying to defend the SSPX, but rather to point out that they aren’t in schism.

 

[kozlosap]

The answer is yes… Hopefully, the society will come back to the Church.

Why would you want a group who is so brainwashed that they deny the Holocaust to be reunited with the HRCC? Thank goodness that our dear Holy Father, Papa Francis, does not serm to be overly interested in playing the SPPX’s power struggle game.

 

[sebastian1213]

It was an excommunicable offense.

There is a canon that says that if one acts contrary to the law, believing that there is an emergency, as the Archbishop had said, one is not excommunicated.

However, there is also a doctrine in the Church that says the Christ is the Supreme Lawgiver and the he deposits his law ONLY in the heart of Peter. Peter can make and change law. He can decide to whom the law applies.

When this situation came up, Bl. John Paul ruled that the above mentioned canon did not apply to the SSPX. He stated that he had no need to explain himself, because he is the successor of St. Peter and the voice of law. This was communicated to the Archbishop and the other new bishops by then Cardinal Ratzinger. They were denied the appeal and the excommunication was effective.

It was for this reason that Bishop Fellay has to file a formal request to have the excommunications lifted, which he did. I have never understood why the laity and some priests of the SSPX keep saying that there was no excommunication when the pope, who is the person who defines law, saw there was. Pope Paul VI had warned the Archbishop that this would happen and there would be no appeal. Pope John Paul followed through.

Pope John Paul did authorize the ordination of one bishop. But that name had to be submitted to the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and approved by the pope. This never happened. The Archbishop ordained without following directions. Some people believe that he was afraid that his candidate would be rejected. I have no idea, because I never met the man. He may have said this to his confidants.

In any case, the excommunication stands, because the pope said that the law that would have protected the Archbishop, did not apply to him. The pope has the power and right to do this. This is a doctrine of the Church that was clarified during the papacy of St. Boniface IV and later again by St.Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure.

It’s about doctrine. The Society must submit to the Primacy and accept that no one, not even the SSPX can correct others, can decide what is and what is not tradition, and no one can decide who is ordained or not ordained without proper authority. Bishops are only as good as their connection to the papacy. The College of the Apostles is always in Communion with Peter. Always submits to Peter.

It is one thing to be allowed to make one’s case before Peter, as did Paul and another to walk when Peter says “NO.” When you walk, you are breaking communion. If you believe that you’re not breaking communion, then your understanding of communion is faulty. Either way, you have a doctrinal issue that has to be resolved.

Finally, there is the issue of ecclesiology. There can be different opinions of what the Church should look like and what she should do first, second and third. This has always been the case. There can even be different opinions on the role of people in the Church. But there has to be a unified vision of what the Church is.

Yes, this is true. I explained this in my post above. One has to be very careful, because it’s very easy to get caught up on passion. These are issues about which people get very passionate. We have to understand these people, be merciful and patient with them, but not allow ourselves to get caught up in their passion to the point that we start saying the same things. I have to understand why they say what they say and I have to find a way to help them not feel that way without hurting them or offending them. If I let myself feel the same way, then we’re both going to drown in our passions.

We’re so complicated; aren’t we? Aren’t you glad that God understands us better than we understand ourselves? :yup:

Thank you, for your points. I will say with complete certainty that if I had not, personally, transitioned from the Novus Ordo to the TLM that my faith would have floundered as for me it is solely a matter of “Lex orandi, lex credendi”. For myself, I can only believe as a Catholic if I worship in the traditional manner. The Novus Ordo does absolutely nothing for may faioth, and I have experienced a sevenfold increase in that faith since my time attending the E.F. form of the Mass.

 

[sebastian1213]

This has been my understanding as well. I think it was Cardinal Hoyos who made the statement to this effect. I would think that if the SSPX were in schism, Catholics would not be advised that they can fulfill their Sunday obligation there.

Abp. Mueller stated that there is a de facto schism, but I take this to mean that while they aren’t in formal schism, the practical reality is like a schism. I would agree with this. But archbishop Lefebvre did not intend schism, nor did he intend to set up a counter church. That’s why SSPX places of worship are called chapels, not churches or parishes. and the area where a SSPX bishop has jurisdiction over SSPX priests are called districts, not dioceses. It’s not that I’m trying to defend the SSPX, but rather to point out that they aren’t in schism.

I would be apt to agree with you wholeheartedly.