Did Archbishop Mueller say that the SSPX is in schism?

[JReducation]

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.

The rejection of doctrine is heresy, not schism.

Schism is to break with the Primacy.

The SSPX seems to be pushing toward a break, not by actually saying that it wants such a break, but because of other things that it has said.

Some things that I have recently read and heard that point toward a break with the Primacy are:

1. Pope Francis is a Modernist.

Calling a pope a Modernist, you may as well call him a heretic. You’re a hairline away.

1. Believe that he is the successor of Peter, but don’t follow him.

Rallying the troops to ignore the pope is serious business that calls into question your communion with the pope. No matter how much you say that he’s the successor of Peter, if you refuse to follow him, you have a problem that you need to resolve and do so quickly.

1. Calling into question the beatification of Bl. John Paul II

Granted that a beatification is not an ex-cathedra decree, but when you call it into question, you are calling the pope’s judgment into question. This is the kind of call that one only makes when one can prove that the judgment has been faulty.

1. Calling into question the upcoming canonizations of Bl. John XXIII and Bl. John Paul II

Here is a rather interesting dilemma. The Society accepts that a canonization is an infallible decree. However, it is raising doubts as to the validity of these canonizations. If the canonizations are not valid, then the decree is not infallible. If that’s the case, is the Society saying that the pope attempting to make an infallible decree an anti-pope.

You can verify these for yourself by checking out the Society’s homepage. The statements are there.

Statements like this lead to a break with the Pontiff.

It must also be understood here that the Society does not include the laity. The laity that is sympathetic to the Society is still under the jurisdiction of the local diocesan bishop, whether it likes it or not. Archbishop Lefebvre had said that he did not want the bishops of the SSPX to take on the care of souls. This was the role of the Ordinary of the Diocese. The role of the bishops was to continue to ordain SSPX priests and to form them, not to lead the faithful. This is a role that they adopted, not that Archbishop Lefebvre assigned to them. They don’t even have jurisdiction over their priests. Only the superior has jurisdiction.

When the CDF speaks about a schism, it’s speaking about the institute itself, not the laity. The layman can enter into a schism, as an individual when he or she denies the authority of the Pontiff and places his judgment and his interpretation of the tradition and Church law over that of the Pontiff. No one has the right to do this.

 

[otjm]

Some of the confusion seems to stem from the differences between de jure schism and de facto schism.

The Church - and specifically John Paul 2, Benedict 16, and the Curia involved in the issue, clearly went out of their was to say that the SSPX were not de jure in schism. And the authority to declare that resides at the highest level.

It was in the interest of the Church to not declare the SSPX to be in schism de jure, as it would have made the effort to reconcile nigh impossible. Once that line is drawn in the sand, it is rarely if ever erased. We have been at it with the Orthodox for multiple centuries, and that situation is not getting better in any significant degree.

Because neither Pope wanted to declare de jure schism, that left the SSPX in “irregular status”.

And there was nothing to be gained, and only the muddying up of everything, if Rome said anything about de facto schism. As most people seem not to understand the difference, nothing was to be gained by discussing the matter; it simply was ignored, side-stepped, and otherwise morphed into the answer that they were not “de jure” in schism - without saying “de jure”.

Matters now have moved farther than they were a year or two ago; there appears to be a hardening up of attitudes, if not statements, from the SSPX, and it now appears that at least one credentialed individual from the Curia has said, in so many words, that they are de facto in schism, or so close as to not be distinguishable as to which side of that fine line they stand. That is an honest answer, and the fact that it has come out in the open may indicate a rather high level of frustration in Rome with the three bishops. That does not mean that Rome is about to declare schism de jure but should it happen, it should not come as a surprise.

Having watched this matter for years, it has been interesting to see that many people have taken Rome’s answer to one question as indicative of the answer to another question. I suspect that Rome intended it that way; but if the SSPX are ever declared officially in schism, there are going to be some very surprised people walking around saying “But they never said that! What changed?” when nothing really significantly changed; it is only that they mistook an answer to one specific question to be the answer to another.

 

[Denise1957]

Some of the confusion seems to stem from the differences between de jure schism and de facto schism.

The Church - and specifically John Paul 2, Benedict 16, and the Curia involved in the issue, clearly went out of their was to say that the SSPX were not de jure in schism. And the authority to declare that resides at the highest level.

It was in the interest of the Church to not declare the SSPX to be in schism de jure, as it would have made the effort to reconcile nigh impossible. Once that line is drawn in the sand, it is rarely if ever erased. We have been at it with the Orthodox for multiple centuries, and that situation is not getting better in any significant degree.

Because neither Pope wanted to declare de jure schism, that left the SSPX in “irregular status”.

And there was nothing to be gained, and only the muddying up of everything, if Rome said anything about de facto schism. As most people seem not to understand the difference, nothing was to be gained by discussing the matter; it simply was ignored, side-stepped, and otherwise morphed into the answer that they were not “de jure” in schism - without saying “de jure”.

Matters now have moved farther than they were a year or two ago; there appears to be a hardening up of attitudes, if not statements, from the SSPX, and it now appears that at least one credentialed individual from the Curia has said, in so many words, that they are de facto in schism, or so close as to not be distinguishable as to which side of that fine line they stand. That is an honest answer, and the fact that it has come out in the open may indicate a rather high level of frustration in Rome with the three bishops. That does not mean that Rome is about to declare schism de jure but should it happen, it should not come as a surprise.

Having watched this matter for years, it has been interesting to see that many people have taken Rome’s answer to one question as indicative of the answer to another question. I suspect that Rome intended it that way; but if the SSPX are ever declared officially in schism, there are going to be some very surprised people walking around saying “But they never said that! What changed?” when nothing really significantly changed; it is only that they mistook an answer to one specific question to be the answer to another.

Thanks for explaning the difference between ‘de jure’ schism, and ‘de facto’ schism.

 

[PJM]

=Anne Guza;11592135]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.

Welcome to CAF!

As a FYI:

They deny the validity of EVERY Vatican II and post Vatican II Pontiffs AND Vatican II itself.

In doing do they effectively deny the bible "Mt. 16:18 “THE GATE OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL”

God’s choices for Pope and by doing so, in a theological sense; are denying God Himself

There decision to be in SCHISM puts them pretty much on par with our Protestant Brethren.

God Bless you,
Patrick.

 

[AlexV]

Absolutely false. Protestants don’t have valid Eucharist and orders; the SSPX does.

And no, they don’t deny the “validity” of the popes…you’re confusing the SSPX with sedevacantists.

 

[PJM]

=AlexV;11596507]Absolutely false. Protestants don’t have valid Eucharist and orders; the SSPX does.

And no, they don’t deny the “validity” of the popes…you’re confusing the SSPX with sedevacantists.

The SSPX MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE VALID SACRAMENTS DEPENDING ON THE ESSENTIAL CONDITION OF DIRECT APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION;

BISHOPS AND PRIEST ORDAINED AFTER THE SCHISM ARE NOT VALID:thumbsup:

 

[JReducation]

While we may disagree and even sanction some of the behavior of the SSPX and some radical traditional elements who identify themselves as such, we must also be honest and compassionate.

The deacons and priests of the SSPX are ordained by validly ordained bishops. The four bishops now three, of the SSPX were ordained by a validly ordained bishop. Therefore, they have full apostolic succession.

The ordination of these clergymen is illegal or illicit, because the Church must grant permission for ordinations, even to the diaconate, much more so to the Order of Bishop.

When a cleric is illegally ordained and said cleric knows that he is being illegally ordained, he is automatically suspended. He does not need a formal letter from a bishop or the Vatican. The law suspends him.

A priest who is suspended forfeits the right to celebrate any of the sacraments. Each time that he celebrates the sacraments, he sins seriously against obedience and against the Primacy of Peter, because he is failing to exercise the ministry in communion with Peter. To exercise the ministry in communion with Peter, you must have permission to minister.

Having said this, if a cleric of the SSPX celebrates the sacraments, they are valid, because he is validly ordained, but they are illicit with two exceptions.

The laity who seek the sacrament of matrimony or the sacrament of reconciliation from the priests of the SSPX are not part of the SSPX. These laymen are part of a canonical diocese. They owe obedience to their local bishop and they must receive these two sacraments from priests who have received faculties from the local bishop.

If a priest attempts to absolve a layman from Diocese X without the faculties from the bishop of Diocese X, the absolution is invalid and the person remains in a state of sin.

There are some conditions under which the absolution is valid, because the Church supplies. Before we go there, let us be clear that the SSPX’s explanation of Supplied Jurisdiction is its own explanation, not that of the Holy See. It’s only authoritative to them, not to the Church. Only the Church can authoritatively define canonical principles not individuals or institutes.

When does the Church supply jurisdiction to absolve:

1. In danger of death
2. While traveling
3. When the penitent does not know that the priest is suspended and he assumes, in good faith, that the priest has the power and authority to absolve him.

Other than that, the priests of the SSPX must receive faculities/permission to absolve from the local bishop or from a male major superior of religious order. The latter can only grant that permission if the confession is to be heard in a house or institution of the order and those going to confession are under the jurisdiction of the religious superior, such as lay students and all religious.

If you know that the priest is suspended and you decide that the law does not apply, you are acting in a schismatic manner, because you are taking the law into your own hands or accepting the interpretation of someone who is not authorized by the Church to interpret the law.

Marriage is very similar. The form requires that the priest or deacon witnessing the marriage have faculties from the local bishop and permission of the pastor of the territorial parish where the marriage is to take place.

Without the bishop’s permission the marriage is invalid. Without the permission of the territorial pastor the marriage is illegal. I would not want to live wondering about my marriage.

Having said all of this, the SSPX is NOT in the same situation as Protestants nor as Orthodox Christians.

Protestants do not have valid orders. Therefore, there are few valid sacraments in Protestantism. If memory serves me right, only baptism and matrimony.

Orthodox are governed by our Code of Canon Law. The Orthodox Churches have their own code of law. Even though they are in schism, our laws do not apply to them. The only thing that is universal is truth, not legislation.

Therefore, Orthodox clergymen who have permission of their bishops and are validly ordained by their bishops, celebrate valid and licit sacraments. Thus we say that we have a Communion in Sacris with them, which is a communion in the sacred.

We don’t have such a communion with the SSPX, because of the suspended state of its clergy. There are sacraments that it’s clergy cannot validly celebrate. If my memory serves me right, the only sacrament that you can administer without permission is Baptism. The others then would be valid, but illicit/illegal.

But it would be very wrong for us to deny the apostolic succession of the clerics of the SSPX or the validity of their ordination. In fact, ,such a denial is a violation of justice. Their ordinations are illegal, but valid.

 

[ProVobis]

Marriage is very similar. The form requires that the priest or deacon witnessing the marriage have faculties from the local bishop and permission of the pastor of the territorial parish where the marriage is to take place.

Without the bishop’s permission the marriage is invalid. Without the permission of the territorial pastor the marriage is illegal. I would not want to live wondering about my marriage.

Br JR, there is also the issue of annulments and this I believe gets the FSSPX in further trouble in two ways: (1) if they themselves are granting annulments; (2) if those married in FSSPX chapels illegally are required to get annulments through the proper channels once they start attending churches in communion with Rome. Can you comment on these situations?

We don’t have such a communion with the SSPX, because of the suspended state of its clergy. There are sacraments that it’s clergy cannot validly celebrate. If my memory serves me right, the only sacrament that you can administer without permission is Baptism.

I believe this information is supplied to the diocese. Is this correct?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What happens when all the remaining SSPX bishops die off?

Will the SSPX ordain other bishops without the permission of Pope Francis?

How many times will it take them doing that before they would finally be in schism?

 

[otjm]

What happens when all the remaining SSPX bishops die off?

Will the SSPX ordain other bishops without the permission of Pope Francis?

How many times will it take them doing that before they would finally be in schism?

The short answer is, nobody knows. The long answer is speculation,

However, after something like 40 years of history, a reasonable guess is that before they all die off, they will elect more bishops.

The likelihood of them getting permission to do so from Rome would appear to be none, nada and zip.

The net result of that would be more bishops excommunicated; it is automatic according to Canon law, and likely would be publicly acknowledged.

And at that point, it would be a question of whether or not Rome has enough patience to not declare them de jure schismatic.

And those are guesses.

 

[Tomdstone]

What happens when all the remaining SSPX bishops die off?

Most likely the SSPX will ordain bishops before that. Bishop Fellay has been trying to regularize the situation with the Vatican, but he has run into difficulties from both some of his own people in the SSPX who feel he is too liberal and too permissive on Vatican II, and from some of the authorities in the Vatican who believe him to be too adamant against some of the provisions of Vatican II.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, there is also the issue of annulments and this I believe gets the FSSPX in further trouble in two ways: (1) if they themselves are granting annulments; (2) if those married in FSSPX chapels illegally are required to get annulments through the proper channels once they start attending churches in communion with Rome. Can you comment on these situations?

Church authorities have the power to heal those marriages by dispensing with certain requirements. In doing so, the marriage then becomes validated.

I believe this information is supplied to the diocese. Is this correct?

Baptisms are supposed to be recorded in the territorial parish. I don’t know how the SSPX priests and deacons handle this.

What happens when all the remaining SSPX bishops die off?

Will the SSPX ordain other bishops without the permission of Pope Francis?

How many times will it take them doing that before they would finally be in schism?

We can only speculate what the Society will do if it’s bishops die off. Obviously, if you don’t have a bishop to do the ordaining, there won’t be anymore bishops.

The short answer is, nobody knows. The long answer is speculation,

However, after something like 40 years of history, a reasonable guess is that before they all die off, they will elect more bishops.

And at that point, it would be a question of whether or not Rome has enough patience to not declare them de jure schismatic.

And those are guesses.

If that were to happen, they would certainly be toying with a rupture that can last for centuries.

Pray that it does not happen.

Most likely the SSPX will ordain bishops before that. Bishop Fellay has been trying to regularize the situation with the Vatican, but he has run into difficulties from both some of his own people in the SSPX who feel he is too liberal and too permissive on Vatican II, and from some of the authorities in the Vatican who believe him to be too adamant against some of the provisions of Vatican II.

Bishop Fellay needs to watch what he says in public. His latest statements is not earning him a vote of confidence among the folks at the curia, nor among those of us who are orthodox religious and clergy. We had a lot of faith and respect for him when he was going through the talks. We felt for him, because he was in a very difficult spot.

But his latest speeches, especially saying, “He’s a real Modernist” about the current pope, left us very disappointed. First of all, Archbishop Lefebvre made it very clear that the bishops of the SSPX were not responsible for the care of souls, because they did not have jurisdiction. Bishop Fellay speaks to the lay masses as if he were their bishop, which he is not, not even under Archbishop Lefebvre’s vision.

Secondly, Archbishop Lefebvre argued with the pope, but did so privately. There is not a single time when he got up in front of people and press to make derogatory remarks about the popes. The popes certainly have never spoken ill about Bishop Fellay. They certainly have enough material to do so. All that a pope has to do is to prohibit attendance at any SSPX chapel or function on the grounds that Bishop Fellay exercises the Order of Bishop illegally and that he ordains priests illegally. The popes have been very patient with that.

It is very disappointing to see this kind of rhetoric coming from him. It gives one the impression that he is saying what some people want to hear. We need to pray for him. He is in a very tough spot. I don’t envy him.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

But his latest speeches, especially saying, “He’s a real Modernist” about the current pope, left us very disappointed.

Isn’t “He’s a real modernist.” a first cousin to some of the glib, off-the-cuff remarks Pope Francis makes on a regular basis? Don’t “Who am I to judge?” (when he’s the Vicar of Christ whose task it is to assess and comment on the popular culture?) and the Pope’s notion that the Church should stop fixating on sexual sins (when it’s the secular media doing the fixating and not the Church) qualify as ‘modernist’ statements?

Don’t we need Bishop Fellay’s definition of ‘modernist’ before we condemn him?

Shifting gears here, what are the provisions of Vatican II which the SSPX rejects?

 

[JReducation]

Isn’t “He’s a real modernist.” a first cousin to some of the glib, off-the-cuff remarks Pope Francis makes on a regular basis? Don’t “Who am I to judge?” (when he’s the Vicar of Christ whose task it is to assess and comment on the popular culture?) and the Pope’s notion that the Church should stop fixating on sexual sins (when it’s the secular media doing the fixating and not the Church) qualify as ‘modernist’ statements?

Don’t we need Bishop Fellay’s definition of ‘modernist’ before we condemn him?

Shifting gears here, what are the provisions of Vatican II which the SSPX rejects?

To call the pope a Modernist is very close to calling him a heretic.

“Whom I to judge?”

Did you see the interview?

The context was a question about a specific person’s past. The Holy Father’s response was perfectly correct. No one, not even the pope can judge an individual soul. That’s what he was being asked to do by people who were passing judgment. If you saw the rest of the interview he asked his audience, “If God forgives and forgets, how dare you not do the same?”

It is not the pope’s job to judge souls.

He did not say that the Church should stop fixating on sexual sins.

Did you read exactly what he said?

He said that we can’t just speak about abortion, homosexuality and contraception all the time. We cannot just throw disjointed doctrines at people, but things have to be taught in context. He said that there is there is a tendency to obsess over these three issues, which is correct. Very often, these three issues take up the entire conversation on morality to the exclusion of injustice, lack of charity, greed, despair, abuse, sloth, unrestrained anger, violence and other sins. Very often, these three issues are not presented in the context of an Incarnational Theology, but simply as rules without grounding them in the Gospel message. Very often, people who engage in these sins are subjected to finger pointing and mean and ugly comments, with little effort to understand their situation and offer some kind of moral and emotional support.

He’s not saying anything that is wrong. He’s actually pointing to the wrong way that we go about dealing with these issues. If we pay close attention to his sermons and speeches, he has spoken very clearly on the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the person placing it dead center between the Incarnation and the Cross, something that we often fail to do. Just read posts and threads on CAF on these subjects and find how many of them offer a good theological and ecclesiological model when answering questions about these subjects.

We’re not condemning Bishop Fellay nor do we need his definition of Modernism. For a Catholic bishop to stand up before the public and call the pope a Modernist is beneath the dignity of a bishop. Name calling is not dignified. No bishop is a magisterium of his own. A bishop can only speak authoritatively when he speaks in communion with Peter, not when he unjustly accuses Peter and when he speaks out of turn. The place for a bishop to present concerns about Peter is to Peter himself, in private or at a council. Also, Cardinal Levada had told the SSPX not to speak about the pope or the Vatican to the public, especially the media. This was one of the conditions for reconciliation. All concerns were to be dealt with internally.

The Vatican has kept its end of the bargain and has not said anything about Bishop Fellay or the SSPX. This kind of behavior is a disappointment.

 

[Aramis]

The SSPX will probably ordain anothe bisho or two when they drop to two surviving bishops. This is due to the requirement for two bishops to ordain a new bishop. They treat the old rubrics in the Missal as nearly gospel, and those require two, even though the Church long has held valid single bishops ordaining new bishops.

As for sacramental records, at least some chapels are maintaining sacramental records as if parishes. Just as some SSPX districts have established marriage tribunals.

edited my moderator

 

[JReducation]

The SSPX will probably ordain anothe bisho or two when they drop to two surviving bishops.

That could cost them dearly. I hope that they don’t do anything that foolish.

As to tribunals, those tribunals cannot grant valid verdicts. They have no bishop with jurisdiction. I don’t understand how they imagine that this makes any sense.

A tribunal must be subordinate to an ordinary. The SSPX don’t canonical standing; therefore, the bishops are not ordinaries. Even if they had canonical standing, not every bishop is an ordinary. Only the bishop of a diocese is an ordinary. Other than that, the only other proper ordinary is a male who is a major superior of a religious community, even a little community, as long as he’s the major superior.

The SSPX bishops don’t meet either requirement. They have no diocese, nor are they consecrated male superiors. Bishop Fellay is a secular priest. Even though he’s the superior general, he does not qualify as a major superior.

I have never understood how the whole tribunal thing is supposed to work, because it’s so inconsistent with tradition.

The Archbishop’s argument is based on an assumption of his own, that the faithful cannot morally apply to a canonical tribunal. But this argument is not proven in an ecclesiastical court, nor is there evidence that to approach a canonically erected tribunal is a grave evil to be avoided. This is purely the Archbishop’s subjective judgment. One cannot make subjective judgments and pass them on as law.

To say that it is evil to approach an established tribunal is not objective, because the person making the statement does not have the authority to say so. He is acting independently of Peter. Bishops can only make authoritative statements about good and evil when they speak in communion with Peter. To claim that it is enough to speak in communion with tradition, but without Peter, is not Catholic. Peter is the final authority of how tradition is to be interpreted and applied.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

To call the pope a Modernist is very close to calling him a heretic.

Close? The three or four profile cases of “Modernists” (from early 20th century history, and didn’t even necessarily like or even know each other) all reinterpreted the Bible as a gigantic myth. They were especially opposed to the bodily resurrection of Jesus and any miracle that was “physical” in any sense. The whole thrust was to make the Bible/Revelation and Church a piece of historical data that could be processed by man, digested, and moved on from. Like Nietzsche’s Superman we needed to get off the delusion of X and become reasonable, responsible, contently meaningless things taking satisfaction only in the fact that we were smarter than our predecessors - smart enough to be jaded and indifferent.

Those who call the Popes ‘modernists’ are guilty of many things; but more often than not they are, in fact, calling the Pope a heretic but trying to conceal the fact by calling him a ‘Modernist’ - as if it makes a difference.

 

[KyrieEleison17]

That could cost them dearly.

In what sense? Surely not a temporal one - at least not from the Church. So who is/can threaten them?

Some monks, I am sure, told Luther that separating from the Church would cost him ‘dearly’. It may or may not have. But by worldly reckoning? He gained half of Europe from a base of one small city and one patron, universally acknowledged rather pathetic prince.

It will cost them nothing by most men’s standards; in fact, they may well just capitalize on it and become frighteningly missionary. It is not difficult to scandalize, then seduce and finaly proselytize.

 

[JReducation]

In what sense? Surely not a temporal one - at least not from the Church. So who is/can threaten them?

For one, an automatic excommunication of all involved.

Second, a possible excommunication of those who formally support such a schismatic act.

Third, a permanent rupture with the Church, leading into a schism.

Those are very big stakes.

Luther did not gain anything other than numbers. He certainly lost more than he gained. He lost the thing that he most tried to purify and preserve, his Catholicity. The result was that he lived a very sad life and died a very bitter man. Even his “wife” called him out on his bitterness. Observe quotation marks, since we all know that his marriage was invalid.

 

[JReducation]

Close? The three or four profile cases of “Modernists” (from early 20th century history, and didn’t even necessarily like or even know each other) all reinterpreted the Bible as a gigantic myth. They were especially opposed to the bodily resurrection of Jesus and any miracle that was “physical” in any sense. The whole thrust was to make the Bible/Revelation and Church a piece of historical data that could be processed by man, digested, and moved on from. Like Nietzsche’s Superman we needed to get off the delusion of X and become reasonable, responsible, contently meaningless things taking satisfaction only in the fact that we were smarter than our predecessors - smart enough to be jaded and indifferent.

Those who call the Popes ‘modernists’ are guilty of many things; but more often than not they are, in fact, calling the Pope a heretic but trying to conceal the fact by calling him a ‘Modernist’ - as if it makes a difference.

Though I’m trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.