SSPX and being canonically irregular?

[Psychae]

hey do not claim the pope is invalid. This is critical detail that must not be overlooked if you want a productive discussion. This dispute is over the authority of the valid pope. The dispute is futile, but calling them sedevanante is factually incorrect and fatality biases discussion.

The SSPX website does not explicitly deny the Pope his rightful authority. When an SSPX official makes an official public statement, he does not come off as Sedevecantist because they are very careful about that.

However! The SSPX is Sedevecantist in all but admitted fact.

I know this for sure because I grew up in that movement and listened to SSPX priests preach every Sunday for more years than I like to remember. I, and other people I know who escaped from the SSPX, say amongst ourselves that “Pope Bashing” is the official sport of SSPXers.

If the SSPX believed in the authority of the Pope, Archbishop Lefebvre would never have disobeyed St John Paul II and consecrated those bishops in the first place. (That’s what started this whole mess!) Actions speak louder than words, and their actions have always shown that they deny the authority of the valid Pope.

So, to answer the OP’s original question, the reason the SSPX isn’t in full communion with the Holy See is that they deny the authority of the Pope.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
So, to answer the OP’s original question, the reason the SSPX isn’t in full communion with the Holy See is that they deny the authority of the Pope.

Please understand, that status of being “in communion” with the Church (or the Holy See, or the local bishop, etc.) is not a status that applies to groups of people. Instead, it applies to individual persons.

An organization, such as a pious society or even a parish, either has canonical status (ie is legal) or it is not.

However, the status of being “in communion” or being “excommunicated” is one that can only apply to individual persons.

 

[jas84173]

Why did you stop going? I recently started and feel so much closer to Christ personally.

 

[Psychae]

Please understand, that status of being “in communion” with the Church (or the Holy See, or the local bishop, etc.) is not a status that applies to groups of people. Instead, it applies to individual persons.

An organization, such as a pious society or even a parish, either has canonical status (ie is legal) or it is not.

However, the status of being “in communion” or being “excommunicated” is one that can only apply to individual persons.

Thank you, Fr. David. So, I guess I should be saying the SSPX has no canonical status… And each individual member of the SSPX is not in full communion with Rome?

It gets confusing sometimes with the language. I just know beyond a doubt their situation isn’t right and I’m so glad my family and I got away from them.

 

[Psychae]

Why did you stop going? I recently started and feel so much closer to Christ personally.

I could write a book. How much detail do you want?

The last straw was the SSPX priest at the chapel we were attending instructed me to lie to my kids about the required length of the fast before receiving Holy Communion. I knew it was one hour. He said “No, that’s the Novus Ordo. We are not them.” And told me to teach my kids that the required fast was three hours.

I talked to him about it. I showed him the Catechism where it says one hour. I made absolutely sure I wasn’t misunderstanding him and he wasn’t misunderstanding me. He was telling me to lie to my kids about this law (precept?) of the Church.

No matter how it makes you feel, @jas84173 , please don’t go to the SSPX. They are Lutheranism V.2.0. They’re very good at drawing people in and brainwashing them. It happened to my parents when I was a kid. Just don’t go there!

If you want more explanation or detail about why I left the SSPX, I’ll be happy to oblige. Just ask.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

Please understand, that status of being “in communion” with the Church (or the Holy See, or the local bishop, etc.) is not a status that applies to groups of people. Instead, it applies to individual persons.

An organization, such as a pious society or even a parish, either has canonical status (ie is legal) or it is not.

However, the status of being “in communion” or being “excommunicated” is one that can only apply to individual persons.

Thank you, Fr. David. So, I guess I should be saying the SSPX has no canonical status… And each individual member of the SSPX is not in full communion with Rome?

It gets confusing sometimes with the language. I just know beyond a doubt their situation isn’t right and I’m so glad my family and I got away from them.

Sort of.

The SSPX (as such) has no canonical status. Their society is not a legal, legitimate, Society under canon law.

As for individual members of the SSPX (and remember, those are only priests) each one has to be evaluated as an individual. Some individuals are excommunicated; some are not. As far as I know, most are not, but that’s just speaking statistically.

Under the current Code of Canon Law, excommunication is a rather strictly defined penalty. The local bishop would have to actually impose the sentence on an individual person. I don’t know of any statistics on how many times that’s happened, but I do know anecdotally that it’s rarely the case in the U.S.

 

[commenter]

Psychae:

FrDavid96:

Please understand, that status of being “in communion” with the Church (or the Holy See, or the local bishop, etc.) is not a status that applies to groups of people. Instead, it applies to individual persons.

An organization, such as a pious society or even a parish, either has canonical status (ie is legal) or it is not.

However, the status of being “in communion” or being “excommunicated” is one that can only apply to individual persons.

Thank you, Fr. David. So, I guess I should be saying the SSPX has no canonical status… And each individual member of the SSPX is not in full communion with Rome?

It gets confusing sometimes with the language. I just know beyond a doubt their situation isn’t right and I’m so glad my family and I got away from them.

Sort of.

The SSPX (as such) has no canonical status. Their society is not a legal, legitimate, Society under canon law.

As for individual members of the SSPX (and remember, those are only priests) each one has to be evaluated as an individual. Some individuals are excommunicated; some are not. As far as I know, most are not, but that’s just speaking statistically.

Under the current Code of Canon Law, excommunication is a rather strictly defined penalty. The local bishop would have to actually impose the sentence on an individual person. I don’t know of any statistics on how many times that’s happened, but I do know anecdotally that it’s rarely the case in the U.S.

I can understand how excommunication may apply to the some priests who entered SSPX in the 1970s, from the RCC. Fr. John was baptized as a baby in St. Mark Parish, received other sacraments as tracked on his baptismal certificate in that RC parish. He was counted in the stats for that diocese. He joined SSPX later, but the Church has always known about him.

But how does that apply nowadays? Bill was (reportedly) baptized in an SSPX chapel. His parents did not officially belong to any RC parish or diocese. Bill never joined any RC parish, (reportedly) got all his sacraments in SSPX chapels, including an ordination, though there are no diocesan stats on this. Maybe his parents have a copy of his baptism certificate, but no parish would - or diocese. He never joined any.

If Fr. Bill does something really bad, how can the RCC excommunicate him, when it has never “communicated” him in the first place? How would they know about his baptism at all? For instance, the RCC does not excommunicate valid Catholic priests of the PNCC, if they never belonged to the RCC in the first place (at one time, they all came from the RCC).

Stats about excommunication are always shaky, because some excommunications are automatic, or “latae sententiae”. Stats could not measure how many priests have automatically excommunicated themselves, because it might be a private matter. Further, we would not know how many were restored, presumably after confession.

 

[FrDavid96]

I can understand how excommunication may apply to the some priests who entered SSPX in the 1970s, from the RCC. Fr. John was baptized as a baby in St. Mark Parish, received other sacraments as tracked on his baptismal certificate in that RC parish. He was counted in the stats for that diocese. He joined SSPX later, but the Church has always known about him.

But how does that apply nowadays? Bill was (reportedly) baptized in an SSPX chapel. His parents did not officially belong to any RC parish or diocese. Bill never joined any RC parish, (reportedly) got all his sacraments in SSPX chapels, including an ordination, though there are no diocesan stats on this. Maybe his parents have a copy of his baptism certificate, but no parish would - or diocese. He never joined any.

Membership in a Catholic parish is determined by residence. Not by any kind of registration. Anyone baptized Catholic is automatically a member of the local parish. Registration, or lack of it, means nothing. So if his parents were Catholic, they automatically were members of the parish where they lived at the time.

Bill had a private baptism (one performed by an SSPX priest). Assuming his parents intended him to be baptized Catholic, he is Catholic and he is a member of the local Catholic parish. Just as one becomes a Catholic at baptism even if the baptism is danger-of-death and performed by a non-Christian nurse. Such should be recorded, but the lack of a record doesn’t change the status of the person.

The SSPX have no lay members. It’s one of the games they play. By not calling people “members” they can avoid the legal definition of schism. They are careful to tell their followers not to claim to be members or parishioners of their chapels, but only visitors.

If Fr. Bill does something really bad, how can the RCC excommunicate him, when it has never “communicated” him in the first place? How would they know about his baptism at all? For instance, the RCC does not excommunicate valid Catholic priests of the PNCC, if they never belonged to the RCC in the first place (at one time, they all came from the RCC).

As I said, he is a member of the Catholic Church by virtue of his baptism, even though that baptism was done privately and even though no record might exist in the parish register.

Documentation only proves membership; it does not determine it.

Therefore, Bill can be excommunicated.

Stats about excommunication are always shaky, because some excommunications are automatic, or “latae sententiae”. Stats could not measure how many priests have automatically excommunicated themselves, because it might be a private matter. Further, we would not know how many were restored, presumably after confession.

Right. We don’t know numbers.

 

[FrDavid96]

Right. And further, he automatically became a parishioner of the parish where his parents lived at the time.

All of that is assuming that the parents wanted him to be baptized Catholic—which is safe to presume.

Since the SSPX do not allow lay members, there is no way that either they or the baptizing priest either could or would say that he was baptized as a member of the SSPX.

 

[jas84173]

Nah not Lutheran. They hold to older traditions. Lutherans are heretics technically.
A better comparison is Orthodox, being in schism and all. For the last millennium lol.

 

[commenter]

The SSPX have no lay members. It’s one of the games they play. By not calling people “members” they can avoid the legal definition of schism. They are careful to tell their followers not to claim to be members or parishioners of their chapels, but only visitors.

SSPX supporters (not necessarily the Order itself) often complain that the SSPX is not granted the same dignity as a separate denomination, for instance they are not included by the diocese in ecumenical discussions or joint activities, like the Lutherans or Methodists. But this dilemma results from the policy that you refer to.

The SSPX is a de facto separate denomination, becoming more distant each year as fewer and fewer of their clergy ever had any in-Church training or experience at all. But if they acknowledged that reality, they would lose many laity who want to be considered, as a group, “in” the Catholic Church, still getting guidance by the Church itself.

If the SSPX admitted they were a separate denomination, they would lose much of their laity, I suspect many of their older supporters for whom that factor of being “in the Church” is important. As time goes on I suspect the younger members, who grew up “Cradle SSPX”, won’t care about maintaining that fiction. It will have its own momentum, its own tradition.

 

[nheiny]

Please research the Hawaii Six case regarding the SSPX. It occurred from 1991-1993, after the Econe consecrations, with Cardinal Ratzinger. The crime for which they were excommunicated? Attending an SSPX chapel and receiving the sacraments from Bp. Williamson. From Archbishop Cacciavillan, declared on Cardinal Ratzinger’s behalf, “From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity.”

Further, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, president of Ecclesia Dei from 2000-2009, said in an interview with Rome Reports mid-March 2017 that the SSPX “never entered down the path of heresy.” “They had moments when they were away, but technically they never made any complete schism or heresy. For example, they did not create a separate jurisdiction, because to create a jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the Church, that means you want to separate.” Moreover, on November of the same year in Italian TV Canal 5, “We are not dealing with a case of heresy. One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism. There is, in the act of ordaining bishops without papal approval, a schismatic attitude. They are within the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a full, a more perfect—and as it was said during the meeting with Bishop Fellay—a more full communion, because communion exists.”

Additionally, Cardinal Gagnon assisted at a Pontifical Solemn Mass at the Econe seminary in the late 1980’s, after Abp Lefebvre had been “suspended” by Rome.

Lastly, Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei stated in a May 28, 1996 letter and repeated in Protocol No. 236/98 of March 6, 1998, “In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the SSPX. …If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.” And in a letter of September 27, 2002, “it is true that participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the SSPX does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism.”

So, while I greatly admire Cardinal Burke, numerous other canon lawyers of the Church don’t share his view about the SSPX. As Cardinal Cassidy stated, “Of course the Mass and Sacraments administered by priests of the Society are valid. The bishops are validly—but not lawfully—ordained. What is required is reconciliation with the Catholic Church, and this is something greatly desired by the Bishop of Rome. Unfortunately, there does not seem at this time any sign that this may happen at an early date…” I pray, as a member of the Catholic Church who attends the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite at a non-SSPX parish, that this internal matter in the Church can be solved most expediently.

 

[nheiny]

First, let me thank you for your well pointed response.

Lefebvre’s action constituted a schismatic act, and formal adherance to a schismatic act results in excommunication

Some have argued that Abp. Lefevre’s actions were not a schismatic act. Cardinal Castillo Lara, J.C.D., President of the PC for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law and President of the Disciplinary Commission of the Roman Curia stated in 1988 after the consecrations, “The act of consecrating a bishop [without a papal mandate] is not in itself a schismatic act.” Further, Count Neri Capponi, Professor Emeritus of Canon Law at the University of Florence and an Accredited Advocate of both the Apostolic Signatura and Holy Roman Rota stated, “The fact is that Abp.Lefebvre simply said: ‘I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.’ Therefore, this act was not, per se, schismatic.”

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, former president of the PC Ecclesia Dei said in an interview with Rome Reports that the SSPX “never entered down the path of heresy.” “They had moments when they were away, but technically they never made any complete schism or heresy. For example, they did not create a separate jurisdiction, because to create a jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the Church, that means you want to separate.” In 2005 he declared, “Unfortunately Abp.Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism." Lastly, on November of the same year, “We are not dealing with a case of heresy. One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism. There is, in the act of ordaining bishops without papal approval, a schismatic attitude. They are within the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a full, a more perfect—and as it was said during the meeting with Bp. Fellay—a more full communion, because communion exists.”

The person that Rome has put in charge of all the traditional orders in the world and who has aided the discussions of full communion, has admitted they are not in schism multiple times. If his opinion was errant, then why would Rome allow the Prefect to continue in a position of power and in the discussions of reconciliation?

Fr. Gerald Murray, J.C.D. in his doctoral these at the Gregorian stated, “In the case of the SSPX, the Vatican never declared any priest or lay person to have become a schismatic.” Please look up the Hawaii 6 case as well involving SSPX members and the local diocese. Cardinal Ratzinger was directly involved.

Contrary to what Cardinal Burke has stated, Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary of the PC Ecclesia Dei, has stated, “In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the SSPX. …If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”

 

[Melchior_1]

The canonical situation with the SSPX requires a bit of digging in order to understand where they are currently placed. This is especially true considering that both sides of this discussion either want them gone, or want them to be totally right in all things. To wit; some say all their Sacraments are invalid, others say all of their Sacraments are fully valid. The truth is a mix of both, and it depends on the Sacrament.

I talk a bit about it here. It’s a long read, so prepare yourself accordingly.

 

[FrDavid96]

The canonical situation with the SSPX requires a bit of digging in order to understand where they are currently placed. This is especially true considering that both sides of this discussion either want them gone, or want them to be totally right in all things. To wit; some say all their Sacraments are invalid, others say all of their Sacraments are fully valid. The truth is a mix of both, and it depends on the Sacrament.

Another aspect that many people fail to take into account is that every individual question or issue about the SSPX must be put into chronological context. That is absolutely essential.

When the SSPX were first founded (as an experimental society) they enjoyed perfectly legitimate canonical status in the Church. So, any priest who joined them was in every way faithful to the Church.

Over the decades, their situation has changed. Canon law has changed.

Statements made about them in 1972 versus 1984 versus 1999 or 2018 will all have different conclusions.

That complicates things.

Someone might quote a very authoritative source about the SSPX, which was true at the time it was written, but might not be true a few years later.

For example: Pope Benedict wrote “they exercise no ministry in the Church.” Absolutely true at the time he said it. Later, Pope Francis gave them faculties to absolve (or so it seems because he did not exactly use that language). Therefore, statements about whether or not their absolutions are valid DEPEND ENTIRELY ON THE DATE in question.

This complicates things and it complicates the discussions because all too often people fail to take into account the date of their source material when quoting something about the SSPX.

 

[FrDavid96]

That’s not the canonical definition of schism–an act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff. An act of disobedience is not quite the same thing as a “withdrawal of submission.” Granted, they can be very close, but they’re just not the same.

Be assured that I am absolutely not attempting to defend the SSPX in any way, shape, or form.

However, canonically speaking, they do not meet the strict definition of schism.

They achieve this by knowing the law very well and knowing how to manipulate that law to serve their own misguided ends. They know exactly what the law defines as schism and they know exactly how far they can go without actually crossing that line. And that is precisely what they do.

There could be times when an act of disobedience of the pope is not schism. For example, the pope could order me to change my Mass schedule at my parish. If I disobey, I would not be in schism. I’m making an obvious example just to illustrate the point. By no means am I trying to equate the different forms of disobedience.

I absolutely agree with you here: there is no excusing what they do.

However, just understand that they do not meet the canonical definition of schism.

 

[FrDavid96]

Here is the technicality.

What Abp Lefebre did was a “schismatical act.”

The other members of the SSPX did not do that same act. He was the only one who actually consecrated the 3 new bishops.

Since the other members did not actually do that same act, they don’t bring upon themselves the same status.

The SSPX have ordained bishops w/o proper authority. What they have not done is to attempt to assign any jurisdiction to those bishops. ON PAPER (though we all know, not in reality) they are fee-lance bishops, they don’t claim to be “Ordinaries”

If they did that, they would be in formal schism. That’s exactly the line they do not cross.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes. I simply did not mention them.

But considering that the SSPX was canonically founded in the beginning before this happened in 1988, it makes sense that the other members cannot be held accountable for this.

Exactly. A member would be entirely right to defend himself by saying “I had nothing to do with it, I was in Boston at the time.” That’s why the Church does not impose the same penalty on him.

Okay, that makes sense. If they tried to make their bishops “ordinaries,” I guess it would seem like they’re setting up a rival hierarchy.

PRECISELY. That’s exactly the situation. The moment they claim to have lay members, they would be in schism. They know this, and that is exactly why they claim that they do not have any lay members.

 

[commenter]

I respect the insights of the canon law experts, and SSPX supporters. They focus on events of the 1970s, to establish their arguments. But I am a social worker. From a social viewpoint, the SSPX is far less “in communion” now than in the 1970s, when their members had far more training and work in the Church itself than in the SSPX.

In 1978, or maybe as late as 1988, it might have been possible for the SSPX to return as a group, since they were still more “men of the Church” than “men of the SSPX” in terms of their background. Then, it would have been a “return”. But in 2018, I would say those who choose to come in should come in as individuals. Unlike 1978, this would not be a “return” for the vast majority.

That is a social perspective.

 

[commenter]

The canonical situation with the SSPX requires a bit of digging in order to understand where they are currently placed. This is especially true considering that both sides of this discussion either want them gone, or want them to be totally right in all things…

It gets ambiguous when people use the word “they” to describe SSPX. It can refer to the organization, or to the individual members.

Besides the 2 options you mention, there is a third option. I don’t want them (the individuals) “gone”. But I don’t agree with empowering the organization. The third option would be to encourage individuals in SSPX to join the Church, on their own, when they feel they are ready. The readiness would vary according to the individual.

There are far more resources available now to assist them than in the 1970s and 80s. The fact that SSPX organization denounces the FSSP on its website, should make people think twice about preserving the SSPX organization, as an organization helpful in this reconcilliation process.