Skip to main content

Schism and the SSPX - Courtesy of SSPX.org (part 1)

+
JMJ

The exact state of the SSPX vis-a-vis membership in the Church remains confusing for some Catholics.

Here is the first in a series that I will be either collecting (see below) or writing (tbd) on the topic.

P^3

Courtesy of SSPX.org

Isn't the SSPX schismatic?
Was Archbishop Lefebvre (along with his co-consecrator and the four bishops whom he consecrated) excommunicated also for having done a “schismatic act” (as well as for consecrating without a pontifical mandate, question 11)?
No. A first argument to that is already given (question 11,1).


What, moreover, constitutes a schismatic act?  Not the mere deed of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. The 1983 Code of Canon Law itself lists this offense under Title 3 (abuse of ecclesiastical powers) and not under Title 1 (offenses against religion and the unity of the Church) of its penal section (Book 6).
Nor would it be a “schismatic act” to consecrate against the express wish of the Holy Father. That could amount to disobedience at most.*  But disobedience does not amount to schism; schism requires that one not recognize the authority of the pope to command; disobedience consists in not obeying a command, whilst still acknowledging the authority of the one commanding. “The child who says ‘I won’t!’ to his mother does not deny that she is his mother” (Fr. Glover, in Is Tradition Excommunicated? p. 99 [appendix 2]).

*(But there is no disobedience, cf. An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, pp. 129-136. Cf. "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope's permission)is not itself a schismatic act," Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, October 7, 1988)

Now, Archbishop Lefebvre always recognized the pope’s authority (proved by his consultations with Rome for a solution to the current problems) and so does the SSPX. (See, for example, its support for Pope John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis against women priests.)
Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate would be a schismatic act if one pretended to confer not just the fullness of the priesthood but also jurisdiction, a governing power over a particular flock. Only the pope, who has universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, can appoint a pastor to a flock and empower him to govern it. But Archbishop Lefebvre never presumed to confer anything but the full priestly powers of holy orders, and in no way did he grant any jurisdiction (which he himself did not have personally to give).

As for the faithful, threatened by Pope John Paul II himself with excommunication if they adhere formally to the schism (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988), do they indeed incur any excommunication for going to SSPX priests for the sacraments?
Not at all. The priests of the Society are neither excommunicated nor schismatics (Is Tradition Excommunicated? pp. 1-39). This being so, how could any of the faithful who approach them incur these penalties? Besides:
Excommunication is a penalty for those who commit certain crimes with full moral guilt, not a contagious disease!  (Fr. Glover ibid., p. 100)
On May 1, 1991, Bishop Ferrario of Hawaii “excommunicated” certain Catholicsof his diocese for attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX, and receiving a bishop of the Society to confer the sacrament of Confirmation. Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, overturned this decision: 
From the examination of the case... 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. (June 28, 1993)

More on this topic
SSPX PDF media brochure: click to open
Bishop Fellay's press release on withdrawal of excommunications
The excommunication of the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, on June 30, 1988... and which we had always contested, has been withdrawn by another decree...
 1-24-2009
Bishop Fellay on the withdrawal of the 1988 excommunications
Thanks to this gesture, Catholics attached to Tradition throughout the world will no longer be unjustly stigmatized and condemned for having kept the Faith of their fathers. Catholic Tradition is no longer excommunicated... 
1-24-2009
Get the full picture
about the SSPX with this select group of informative conferences and articles
The Hawaii Six: In Memoriam
Twenty years ago in January 1991, a canonical decree of excommunication was issued in Honolulu, Hawaii against six lay persons by the local bishop of that diocese... 
6-29-2011
The 1988 Episcopal Consecrations:
A two-part comprehensive study of "Operational Survival" undertaken by Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Castro de Mayer
A Canonical Study
German canonist Fr. Rudolph Kaschewsky briefly explains in this July 1988 article how the 1988 Consecrations did not incur excommunication, nor were they a schismatic act

Two Years After the Consecrations
A conference given by Archbishop Lefebvre on in 1990 summarizing the SSPX's position and status of Catholic Tradition in light of the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations
One Year After the ConsecrationsAn interview with Archbishop Lefebvre about the SSPX, Church and Catholic Tradition one year after the 1988 Consecrations
June 1988 Letter to Pope John Paul II from the SSPX's SuperiorsSummarizes the causes of the failure of the 1987-88 discussions with Rome and that the papal mandate for consecrating a bishop was implicitly given

sspx.org © 2013                    home                    contact

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

 + JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them.   I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest.  This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis?  When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due.   This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too thin

Communique about Avrille Dominicans - SSPX.org

+ JMJ Having completed the review of the 'Avrille' perspective, this communique from the French District Superior is perfectly timed. I believe that the 'resistance' has lost rationality and further argumentation simply results in their holding on to their false ideal all the more firmly. Pray much ... First, for them to acquiesce to the grace of humility in order to obtain a clear perspective on the principles involved. Second, that we may remain faithful to the Church, and Her Dogmas, Doctrines and Principles. Lest we become that which against we strove ... P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org

Cathinfo and the 'resistance' perspective (updated with response to comment)

+ JMJ Matthew, the owner of Cathinfo - a resistance forum has posted a response to a person that indicated his reasons for continuing to go to the SSPX.

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

 + JMJ   Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX.  In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below)  items 2 and 3 are key.  Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess!  This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him

Yes Sally, Pope Francis IS the Pope and is in great need of our prayers!

+ JMJ The Church of Christ is Apostolic and this is also a 'Mark' of the Church. Specifically it means: The true Church is also to be recognised from her origin, which can be traced back under the law of grace to the Apostles; for her doctrine is the truth not recently given, nor now first heard of, but delivered of old by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the entire world. ... That all, therefore, might know which was the Catholic Church, the Fathers, guided by the Spirit of God, added to the Creed the word Apostolic. For the Holy Ghost, who presides over the Church, governs her by no other ministers than those of Apostolic succession.  ( Tradicat: Marks of the Church Apostolic - Catechism of Trent ) The consequence of this is Dogma is that if there are no longer any Bishops, then the promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ that the Church would stand to the end of the world, was false. A secondary consequence of this would be the eradication of the priesthoo