Did Archbishop Mueller say that the SSPX is in schism?

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

I wrote the title of the thread very clearly to allow people to explain what they understand the Prefect to be saying.

This forum does not have the authority or the right to tell others that a Prefect of the Church is wrong and we’re right. Only the Holy Father has that authority.

Let’s us behave like faithful Catholics in every respect, even when we do not like what the Church tells us.

 

[GloriaMaria]

Thank you Mr. Casey. The title is much more clear.

I read it as Archbishop Mueller saying that the SSPX has placed themselves in schism - ie: outside of the Church.

I understood that to mean that they are not considered as Catholics but can return if they choose. But I have been corrected by Brother to understand that they are indeed Catholics with an irregular communion and we can go to their Masses under certain conditions as it has been in the past.

I have a long history with the SSPX. I left the group formally and re-entered into full communion with the Catholic church where I had to make a profession of Faith in the Church and have my children recognized as Catholics because the baptisms they received by the SSPX were considered as Protestant or Orthodox might be.

In a way, I wonder if I have a little egg on my face. Or whatever the expression is. We have a few weeks with no priest. The nearest diocesan Mass (Ordinary Form) is going to be a 2 hour drive away. But, the SSPX will be right here that week.

The Church is not guiding me clearly.

 

[Aramis]

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.

Canon law was explicit then, and still is now, that consecration of bishops without papal or patriarchal* approval is a schismatic act and is a laetae sentencae offense. That is, the excommunication is automatic by the law; the formal recognition of it is not essential, but is a public warning.

Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated the instant he started the ordination rite with intent to consecrate a bishop. The letter about it was simply to inform him that Rome had taken notice, and was warning the public.

The pope at the time could have, but chose not to, declared them in formal schism from that point. He didn’t. He suspended them, publicly announcing their suspension, but overlooking that the act was one of schism, treating it merely as gross disobedience.

It looks like, to me, the current prefect is making it clear that their status isn’t changed. They’re committing schismatic acts, and are suspended. We’ll see if they are declared in full formal schism.

(Ironically, if they actually break away, it regularizes their status and thus the sacraments they perform, even as it puts their individual souls in grave danger.)
-=-=-=-=-=-
*Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches in Union do not need papal permission to ordain bishops for their traditional territories. It’s a special case. The Roman Rite titular patriarchs are required to obtain permission.

 

[Denise1957]

I left the group formally and re-entered into full communion with the Catholic church where I had to make a profession of Faith in the Church and have my children recognized as Catholics because the baptisms they received by the SSPX were considered as Protestant or Orthodox might be.

It’s interesting that your children’s baptism was considered as Protestant or Orthodox. I converted through the SSPX and was baptized, but was not required to make a profession of faith when I left the SSPX and began attending a diocesan parish, which did not consider me as Protestant or Orthodox. But then perhaps there’s not a clear instruction from the Vatican on how to deal with those baptized by the SSPX, so some diocesan priests or bishops want to require a profession of faith, which seems reasonable.

 

[Saints_Alive]

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.

Good points, all three.

 

[ServusHumilis]

Traditional Catholocism is only growing. If the SSPX smartens up a bit and restructures I foresee one day again it may be in good standing with Rome. It would be nice to see their chapel nearby as new parish in the diocese offering the EF mass. Wishful thinking, perhaps.

 

[PJM]

=GloriaMaria;11563662]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?

THEY ARE IN SCHISM
THEY ARE NOT ROMAN CATHOLICS OR CONNECTED TO THE RCC
CATHOLICS SHOULD PRAY FOR THEM, BUT NOT SUPPORT THEM

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[thistle]

THEY ARE IN SCHISM
THEY ARE NOT ROMAN CATHOLICS OR CONNECTED TO THE RCC
CATHOLICS SHOULD PRAY FOR THEM, BUT NOT SUPPORT THEM

God Bless you,
Patrick

Your comment that I highlighted is not correct. Not being in communion with the Church does not mean they are no longer Catholics. It simply means they are Catholics in a state of mortal sin.
Once baptised a Catholic you remain a Catholic forever, no matter what you do.

 

[JReducation]

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.

The rule of thumb is to go with the last statement by the highest ranking authority. This would be Archbishop Mueller. This is something that we learn in the seminary when studying ecclesiology and law.

QUOTE=PJM;11579615]THEY ARE IN SCHISM
THEY ARE NOT ROMAN CATHOLICS OR CONNECTED TO THE RCC
CATHOLICS SHOULD PRAY FOR THEM, BUT NOT SUPPORT THEM

God Bless you,
Patrick

Patrick, that’s not what the Archbishop is saying. Go back and look at my post # 14. I break it down.

Your comment that I highlighted is not correct. Not being in communion with the Church does not mean they are no longer Catholics. It simply means they are Catholics in a state of mortal sin.
Once baptised a Catholic you remain a Catholic forever, no matter what you do.

We can never say that someone is in a state of sin of any kind. We can say that an action is objectively sinful. The person who commits the action may or may not be culpable of sin or culpable to a lesser degree. I’ll quote the Holy Father here. “Who am I to judge?”

A confessor or a spiritual director may make such a statement, because he or she all the facts directly from the individual.

We have to remember that terms such as: schism, schismatic, heretic, apostate are all legal terms that the Church incorporated into her legal system. They are not dogma. The Church can and does modify what these terms encompass and how they are applied. The thing is that the layman who is not a Canon Lawyer now has access to the codes, but not to the formation that goes with the codes. It was never in the mind of the Church that anyone other the lawyers, bishops and male religious would ever even see the code,. The Church never provided for education in Canon Law for sisters and laymen. That’s very new. We have to understand these terms as the Church means them today.

 

[commenter]

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.

With regard to #3, I agree.

With regard to #1, rather than trying to analyze the SSPX, I think the Vatican is merely affirming Church teaching and practice, to a group that has changed drastically over the years. Any “analysis” they make would be obsolete in 5 years. The SSPX is a totally different group than a few decades ago, taking positions they never would have a few years earlier. The Church is consistent, but the challenges posed by the SSPX vary, so the responses have to be adjusted too.

With regard to #2, there is confusion because the argument switches back and forth between describing the “SSPX” - an organization of clergy and religious, once given some organizational recognition by the Catholic Church, but no longer - a corporation - on the one hand,
and…on the other hand,
individual laity, clergy ,and religious. Clarify whether you are talking about the organization, or the individuals, when you refer to possible schism. Individuals vary.

People are constantly asking what is the bare minimum of obedience and loyalty I must offer the Magisterium to avoid being considered in schism. I wish there were threads on how we can all be better saints, which means going beyond the minimum.

(My personal opinion is that the SSPX as it was a few decades ago might have come in, as a community, but it has changed so much that from here on, people will come in only as individuals.)

 

[thistle]

The rule of thumb is to go with the last statement by the highest ranking authority. This would be Archbishop Mueller. This is something that we learn in the seminary when studying ecclesiology and law.

Patrick, that’s not what the Archbishop is saying. Go back and look at my post # 14. I break it down.

We can never say that someone is in a state of sin of any kind. We can say that an action is objectively sinful. The person who commits the action may or may not be culpable of sin or culpable to a lesser degree. I’ll quote the Holy Father here. “Who am I to judge?”

A confessor or a spiritual director may make such a statement, because he or she all the facts directly from the individual.

We have to remember that terms such as: schism, schismatic, heretic, apostate are all legal terms that the Church incorporated into her legal system. They are not dogma. The Church can and does modify what these terms encompass and how they are applied. The thing is that the layman who is not a Canon Lawyer now has access to the codes, but not to the formation that goes with the codes. It was never in the mind of the Church that anyone other the lawyers, bishops and male religious would ever even see the code,. The Church never provided for education in Canon Law for sisters and laymen. That’s very new. We have to understand these terms as the Church means them today.

Yes. You are right. I should have said objectively.

 

[PJM]

=sebastian1213;11571827]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.

Dear Friend,

While your entitled to YOUR opinion; it MUST remain just and only that.

While the focus and level piety MAY differ; BOTH are Valid and Licit expressions of the Roman Catholic Faith.

One may prefer one to the other [in both directions I will add], but we must denounce one in favor of the other.

God Bless you,
patrick

 

[sebastian1213]

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.

You must take into account that it is NOT the whole group. These were the beliefs of Bp. Williamson. I believe that what he said was not to deny the Holocaust, but to say that people were not exterminated by gas chamber, based upon the evidence that has been presented

 

[sebastian1213]

Dear Friend,

While your entitled to YOUR opinion; it MUST remain just and only that.

While the focus and level piety MAY differ; BOTH are Valid and Licit expressions of the Roman Catholic Faith.

One may prefer one to the other [in both directions I will add], but we must denounce one in favor of the other.

God Bless you,
patrick

I did not say that it was the same for everyone involved and I did not express this thought as an opinion, but as a fact, as it regards myself. Do I understand you to say that you believe we must denounce one in favor of the other, or a I mis translating your statement?

 

[sebastian1213]

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.

scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature%20-%20Remnant%20The%20Inanity%20of%20Dr%20Moynihan%20Regarding%20the%20SSPX.pdf

 

[PJM]

=sebastian1213;11582479]You must take into account that it is NOT the whole group. These were the beliefs of Bp. Williamson. I believe that what he said was not to deny the Holocaust, but to say that people were not exterminated by gas chamber, based upon the evidence that has been presented

Even So, the ENTIRE Group is in Schism for NOT being humble enough to actually Follow God HIS WAY!

 

[sebastian1213]

Even So, the ENTIRE Group is in Schism for NOT being humble enough to actually Follow God HIS WAY!

I would say so, since a Vatican official made comments of the sort. While he acknowledges potential for that, he did not say it with certainty.

Cardinal Hoyos,2007;
who seemed to say that the SSPX were not in schism, although they had committed a schismatic act. Even so, he warns that the “danger of schism” is very great. Let’s look at this statement:

“The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebvre who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics. I do, however, share St. Jerome’s fear that heresy leads to schism and vice versa. The danger of a schism is big, such as a systematic disobedience vis-à-vis the Holy Father or by a denial of his authority. It is after all a service of charity, so that the Priestly Society gains full communion with the Holy Father by acknowledging the sanctity of the new Mass”

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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.

That’s the only issue I have with the SSPX; they have broken communion with the Chair of Peter. Otherwise, I can’t think of any situation where the Church’s right of conscience provisions would apply more than this one.

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, and it was Bishop Fellay’s opinion that the post-Vatican II Church was in schism and for good reason. Was he supposed to follow what he sincerely believed to be serious deviations from long settled Catholic doctrine and tradition? When we look at the results, how can we say he was wrong?

The Novus Ordo made a farce of the Mass and when wayward priests were not corrected and brought into line, they began preaching heresy, especially when homosexuality in the clergy proliferated and spread like a cancer, which it is. None of the popes sitting in Peter’s Chair did a thing about it. Catholic doctrine was gradually jettisoned to the point where I had a bishop say to me, after I had complained to him about the rampant heresy in the Church, “Ferde, you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube.” That from an allegedly Catholic bishop! No mention of how the toothpaste escaped.

So now contraception is winked at, failure to attend Sunday Mass is winked at, acceptance of abortion rights and homosexual ‘marriage’ is ignored and all are allowed to receive the Sacrament without going to Confession, which is also winked at. That, BTW, is what’s called sacrilege and it’s permitted throughout the Church in the West.

You can tell be the SSPX are in schism, but you can’t make me believe it. Except for the primacy matter.

 

[PJM]

=sebastian1213;11582501]I did not say that it was the same for everyone involved and I did not express this thought as an opinion, but as a fact, as it regards myself. Do I understand you to say that you believe we must denounce one in favor of the other, or a I mis translating your statement?

No, not at all

BOTH offer Christ in Person:thumbsup:

And that’s MORE tan good enough for me.

God Bless,
Patrick

 

[Anne_Guza]

Schism is basically a rejection of doctrine and/or papal authorithy, if my memory serves me. It would then be reasonable to argue that the SSPX is in schism in view of papal authority. I have a friend who considers himself part of the SSPX, and from alll the materials his church passes out it is made very clear that they place more faith in their bishops and priests than in the pope.