Skip to main content

SSPX Schismatic? ++Pozzo

+
JMJ

This is always a hot topic - if the SSPX is in schism then they can't be right.

P^3

Courtesy: Fsspx.news

At the end of a conference that he gave in Poland in July, Archbishop Pozzo answered a few questions from the audience. Fr. Gleize of the SSPX gives the following analysis:
The current situation of the Society of St. Pius X in the Church was one of the themes that was brought up in the context of his remarks on the liturgy, in the seventh question put to him:
Can Pope Francis’ decision to grant the SSPX priests the ability to give sacramental absolution be seen as a way to encourage the faithful to go to SSPX priests for other sacraments?
Archbishop Pozzo’s answer was anything but ambiguous.
No, I do not think it can be interpreted in that way; it is not an encouragement to go see the Society priests. The pope gave his motives in the decree. He is concerned for the spiritual salvation of the SSPX faithful. That is the reason he made sacramental absolution for sins and Extreme Unction for sick persons valid and licit even after the Holy Year, for the good of souls. Suprema lex salus animarum. This was also the reason for the Letter on Marriages, to grant the possibility of a valid marriage with due canonical form, for the good of souls, and certainly in view of a reconciliation. The priests and bishops of the Society of St. Pius X nonetheless exercise their ministry illicitly and illegitimately. They are not excommunicated, of course, not anymore; the excommunication was lifted, so they are not formally schismatic – it is absolutely false to claim that the SSPX is schismatic from a formal, canonical point of view – because there is no longer a schism since they are no longer excommunicated; that is very clear. But they are in an irregular situation, and insofar as they do not have a canonical recognition, they do not exercise their ministry legitimately, except for confessions and marriages, as granted by the pope. We must be very clear about this. The necessity of a canonical recognition is not just a notarial, formal act. The Church is a visible structure and it is essential for the clergy to have a canonical recognition from the Holy See. And this is another truth of the reality of the Church and they should admit it.

The SSPX is Not Schismatic

This answer calls for two remarks. The first remark: “It is absolutely false to claim that the SSPX is schismatic from a formal, canonical point of view.”
Should we see this as a denial of Cardinal Burke’s remarks last year, in his conference on July 15, 2017, in Merdford? In any case, Archbishop Pozzo is determined to clear the Society of the accusation of schism.
The reason for this is that the excommunication of the SSPX bishops and priests was lifted. Which raises the question of the exact impact of this excommunication. Based on the answers the Holy See sent to Bishop Brunner of Sion in 1997, the bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 would have encountered excommunication by reason of the crime of a consecration without a papal mandate. The excommunication would apply to all those who formally adhered to the "schismatic movement" inaugurated by this episcopal consecration.
In his Letter to the Bishops on March 10, 2009, Benedict XVI declared that he lifted the excommunication incurred by the four bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre, nothing more, nothing less. It is not unreasonable to think that he also and by the same acted lifted the excommunication which would have resulted from a formal adherence to a state of schism, judging that the four bishops had sufficiently expressed “their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council.” Archbishop Pozzo’s answer that we have just quoted confirms this interpretation.


news-image-2
Archbishop Pozzo celebrating Mass in 2011

An Unsatisfactory Situation

The second remark: the situation of the SSPX priests remains unsatisfactory in the eyes of the Holy See. For these priests do not have the canonical recognition that is indispensable for anyone who wishes to exercise a legitimate ministry in the Church. The favors granted to them by Pope Francis therefore remain exceptions, conceded for the spiritual good (salvation) of the faithful who go to these priests.
In Rome’s eyes, they do not make the ministry of the SSPX priests legitimate outside of the conditions provided by the Pope (for the sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction and the delegation granted for the celebration of marriages).
Archbishop Pozzo is thus showing that Rome still does not recognize the state of necessity that authorizes the priests of Tradition to work for the salvation of souls, despite the absence of an official recognition from the conciliar authorities.
But if the Society is not schismatic, then why does Rome continue to consider its situation irregular? The explanation was given by Archbishop Pozzo in his answer to a preceding question (the sixth):
“The problem will remain so long as the Society of St. Pius X does not adhere to the doctrinal declaration approved by Pope Francis and presented by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
The problem, therefore, is indeed, first and foremost, a doctrinal problem. In Rome’s own eyes, the canonical recognition depends on the resolution of this problem.
We have to be clear on this, too. Indeed.
-- Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, priest of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X
    Originally Posted in French on Courrier de Rome

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

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

War: Civil Society

 + JMJ  Society seems to be ripping itself apart, both morally and socially.  Morally, the world continues its steady decline.  Israel vs Hamas The confusion over the morality of the Israel vs Hamas War is one example. It is a war and, this time, in response to the October 7th attack.  I've noticed two perspectives emerge from the two combatants.  For the Israeli, it is that they are the only Nation that is not allowed to win a war.  Public opinion is always at play in wars, but in the case of Israel against anyone in the area, public opinion quickly becomes a factor.  For Hamas and its supporters it is embodied in the phrase:  From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free.  This is the goal of Hamas, the elimination of the Jewish state of Israel according to its 2017 Charter (link) .  I understand that their original charter was more explicit.  Tied to this is that Hamas obviously, prioritizes its goal over the Gazans that they govern.  For this I recommend a read of Son of H

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R