Is the SSPX in Schism? If not what is 'Communion'? (part 2)

+

JMJ

In part 1, I provided a reference to the SSPX article from its perspective.

Communion must be preserved between the present and the past, not just amongst the present

Breaking communion with the past is just as severe as breaking it with those in the present.

Communion has three foundations that when all are present create unity or oneness. Fath, Government, Worship

Is the SSPX in Schism?

The SSPX has preserved unity of faith and unity of worship manifestly, to assert otherwise since they preserve pre-conciliar faith and worship is to assert a rupture in either or both domains.

Breaking unity of faith is called heresy, unity of government is called schism.  Has the SSPX broken unity of government?

Firstly, what actually constitutes schism is described aptly by Fr. Harrison in a Remnant article that I have reblogged.

All the approved theologians after St. Thomas follow the same criterion. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, which I do not think anyone will accuse of being too liberal or ‘soft on schism’, affirms that: “not every disobedience is schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command” (vol. 13, p. 529a, s.v. “Schism”, my emphasis). Likewise, the magisterial Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (DTC), possibly the greatest compendium of orthodox Catholic theology ever assembled, explains as follows the difference between heresy and schism. (This is my own translation from the French and the quoted Latin original of Cajetan, with my emphasis)

Schism and disobedience: The two things are so evidently similar, so closely related, that many confuse the two, or find difficulty in distinguishing them. . . . Cajetan [in commenting on the passage from St. Thomas we have considered above] makes some very neat and satisfying precisions. He distinguishes three points of application, or three possible motives for disobedience. First, disobedience might concern simply the matter of the thing commanded, without calling in question the authority or even the personal calibre of the superior: thus, if I eat meat on Friday because I don’t like fish, that is not schism, but simple disobedience. Secondly, the disobedience might focus on the person who holds authority, denying for one reason or another his competence in some particular case, or judging him to be mistaken, . . . while still respecting his office. This still is not schism. . . . Schism does occur when someone . . . ‘rejects a command or judgment of the Pope by reason of his very office, not recognising him as a superior, even while believing that he is’ (cum quis papæ præceptum vel judicium ex parte officii sui recusat, non recognoscens eum ut superiorem, quamvis hoc credat).

Aside from the schismatics and heretics, there is only one group that falls into this category: sedevacantists.

So, since the SSPX is manifestly not sedevacantist, and it continues to maintain relations with Rome while recognizing the authority of the reigning Pontiff, they are not is schism.

Their condition is best described as canonically irregular.

One objection is common at this point: What about Ecclesia Dei Adflicta?

Answer: Consecration of a bishop without Papal mandate is not, per se, a schismatic act.

"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) (source)

Mr. Ferrara explained further in the Remnant:

Indeed, only three months after the motu proprio was issued, Castillo Lara, John Paul II’s own appointed President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, conceded in an interview in La Repubblica (October 7, 1988) that “The act of consecrating a bishop (without the agreement of the Pope) is not in itself a schismatic act…” since the only penalty imposed by the canon is excommunication latae sententiae. (The Cardinal went on to assert that the SSPX schism had arisen before the 1988 consecrations, but that argument is without canonical foundation since no Vatican document even suggested the SSPX was schismatic before the consecrations.)

The reason is that the law prohibiting consecration of a bishop without papal mandate is under the section "USURPATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL FUNCTIONS" not under the section "DELICTS AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH".

What is Communion?

Normally, the phrase Communion is used to refer to the article of the creed "communion of saints".

Let's start with some references,  firstly the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X.

The Ninth Article of the Creed

The Church in General

1 Q. What does the Ninth article: The Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, teach us? A. The Ninth Article of the Creed teaches us that Jesus Christ founded a visible society on earth called the Catholic Church, and that all those who belong to this Church are in communion with one another

Those Outside the Communion of Saints

10 Q. Who are they who do not belong to the Communion of Saints? A. Those who are damned do not belong to the Communion of Saints in the other life; and in this life those who belong neither to the body nor to the soul of the Church, that is, those who are in mortal sin, and who are outside the true Church.
11 Q. Who are they who are outside the true Church? A. Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated.
12 Q. Who are infidels? A. Infidels are those who have not been baptized and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.
13 Q. Who are the Jews? A. The Jews are those who profess the Law of Moses; have not received baptism; and do not believe in Jesus Christ.
14 Q. Who are heretics? A. Heretics are those of the baptized who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants.
15 Q. Who are apostates? A. Apostates are those who abjure, or by some external act, deny the Catholic faith which they previously professed.
16 Q. Who are schismatics? A. Schismatics are those Christians who, while not explicitly denying any dogma, yet voluntarily separate themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ, that is, from their lawful pastors.
17 Q. Who are the excommunicated? A. The excommunicated are those who, because of grievous transgressions, are struck with excommunication by the Pope or their Bishop, and consequently are cut off as unworthy from the body of the Church, which, however, hopes for and desires their conversion. (Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)

The next reference is from the Catechism of the Council of Trent and provides more detail but still treats of the same article of the Creed.

Meaning of "The Communion of Saints"

The faithful, therefore, in the first place are to be informed that this part of the Article, is, as it were, a sort of explanation of the preceding part which regards the unity, sanctity and catholicity of the Church. For the unity of the Spirit, by which she is governed, brings it about that whatsoever has been given to the Church is held as a common possession by all her members.

Communion Of Sacraments

The fruit of all the Sacraments is common to all the faithful, and these Sacraments, particularly Baptism, the door, as it were, by which we are admitted into the Church, are so many sacred bonds which bind and unite them to Christ. That this communion of Saints implies a communion of Sacraments, the Fathers declare in these words of the Creed: I confess one Baptism. After Baptism, the Eucharist holds the first place in reference to this communion, and after that the other Sacraments; for although this name (communion) is applicable to all the Sacraments, inasmuch as they unite us to God, and render us partakers of Him whose grace we receive, yet it belongs in a peculiar manner to the Eucharist which actually produces this communion.

Communion Of Good Works

But there is also another communion in the Church which demands attention. Every pious and holy action done by one belongs to and becomes profitable to all through charity, which seeketh not her Own. This is proved by the testimony of St. Ambrose, who, explaining these words of the Psalmist, I am a partaker with all them that fear thee, observes: As we say that a limb is partaker of the entire body, so are we partakers with all that fear God. Therefore has Christ taught us that form of prayer in which we say our, not my bread; and the other Petitions are equally general, not confined to ourselves alone, but directed also to the common interest and the salvation of all.
This communication of goods is often very aptly illustrated in Scripture by a comparison borrowed from the members of the human body. In the human body there are many members, but though many, they yet constitute but one body, in which each performs its own, not all the same, functions. All do not enjoy equal dignity, or discharge functions alike useful or honourable; nor does one propose to itself its own exclusive advantage, but that Of the entire body. Besides, they are so well organised and knit together that if one suffers, the rest likewise suffer on account of their affinity and sympathy of nature; and if, on the contrary, one enjoys health, the feeling of pleasure is common to all.
The same may be observed in the Church. She is composed of various members; that is, of different nations, of Jews, Gentiles, freemen and slaves, of rich and poor; when they have been baptised, they constitute one body with Christ, of which He is the Head. To each member of the Church is also assigned his own peculiar office.
As some are appointed apostles, some teachers, but all for the common good; so to some it belongs to govern and teach, to others to be subject and to obey. 

Those Who Share In This Communion

The advantages of so many and such exalted blessings bestowed by Almighty God are enjoyed by those who lead a Christian life in charity, and are just and beloved of God. As to the dead members; that is, those who are bound in the thraldom of sin and estranged from the grace of God, they are not so deprived of these advantages as to cease to be members of this body; but since they are dead members, they do not share in the spiritual fruit which is communicated to the just and pious. However, as they are in the Church, they are assisted in recovering lost grace and life by those who live by the Spirit; and they also enjoy those benefits which are without doubt denied to those who are entirely cut off from the Church. (Catechism of the Council of Trent)

The final reference is from the book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ott.

The members of the Kingdom of God on earth and in the other world sanctified by the redeeming grace of Christ are united in a common supernatural life with the Head of the Church and with one another. (Sent. certa.)
The Apostles' Creed, in its later version (fifth century), extends the profession of belief in the Holy Catholic Church to the: "communion of saints." In the context the words refer to the Church here below. It asserts that the faithful on earth, in so far as the obstacle of grievous sin does not stand in the way, are connected with Christ the Head and with one another in a supernatural life-communion.
According to the Roman Catechism, the Communion of Saints becomes effective through the common possession by the faithful of the means of grace deposited in the Church and of the extraordinary gifts of grace bestowed upon the Church; and again through the common participation in the fruits of the prayers and of the good works of all the members of the Church: "The unity of God, by which she (the Church) is guided, causes all that is deposited in her to be common to all "(I 10, 22). "Not merely those gifts are common, which make men pleasing and just, but also the extraordinary gifts of grace " (I 10, 25). "Whatever good things and holy things are undertaken by an individual benefit all, and that these things are profitable to you, is caused by love, which does not seek its own advantage n (I 10, 23). Pius XII also, in the Encyclical " Mystici Corporis'" similarly comments: "There can be no good and virtuous deed performed by individual members of the Mystical Body of Christ which does not, through the Communion of Saints, redound also to the welfare of all. " Thus there is among the members of the Mystical Body a spiritual commonwealth of riches, which embraces all the wealth of graces acquired by Christ, and all the good works performed with the grace of Christ. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)

Taking these references into account, what can we conclude about the participation of those outside the Church in the life of Grace via the Communion of Saints?

1. The dead members of the Church remain members and are "assisted in recovering lost grace and life by those who live by the Spirit; and they also enjoy those benefits which are without doubt denied to those who are entirely cut off from the Church"
2. Non-members do not participate in the Communion of Saints.

The following objection comes to mind: What about baptized non-Catholics who meet the four criteria?

The four criteria are:

1. A baptized non-Catholic achieves a state of invincible ignorance, removing culpability for not entering the Church.
2. Possesses Supernatural Faith
3. The person is trying to align his will to that of God as he understands it and manifests implicit desire. Meaning if he knew that the Church of Christ is the True Church, then he would transition from an implicit to explicit desire to enter the Church.
4. Finally, based on the aforesaid items, if this person made a perfect act of charity / contrition then they will achieve a state of grace. 

If, and it is a big IF, this theoretical person achieved the State of Grace, then would they participate in the Communion of Saints?

Turning to Pope Pius XII's Teaching in Mystici Corporis we find the answer:

For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. (source)

So based on this analysis the Protestants and Schismatics are objectively outside the Church and even if they establish a relationship by meeting the four criteria they remain out of communion.

The next question that could be raised is whether all bonds to the Church are broken by their schism/heresy?

Ultimately, the mark left by baptism is indelible, so it is impossible for a Protestant to completely sever their relationship with the Church.  They are still subject to the Law of the Church, but in Her desire for the salvation of the erring souls they are granted a dispensation in most points of simple discipline. Here`s what the Catholic Encyclopedia has on the matter:

As baptism is the gate of entrance to the ecclesiastical society, all those who are baptized, even non-Catholics, are in principle subject to the laws of the Church; in practice the question arises only when certain acts ofheretics and schismatics come before Catholic tribunals; as a general rule an irritant law is enforced in such a case, unless the legislator has exempted them from its observance, for instance, for the form of marriage. (source)

I understand that Dr. Peter`s has also made the same statement that Protestants are dispensed from canonical form, but are subject to other parts of the law.

Conclusion

Based on the fact that the SSPX is not in schism, but a canonically irregular state, they are in Communion. The notion of 'partial' or 'not full' communion does not seem to be consistent with the pre-conciliar understanding of Communion.

For protestants (heretics) and orthodox (schismatics),  any `Communion' that remains is the invincible thread of their valid baptism.  However, as noted above they are still not in 'Communion' with the Church.

Postscript

I had forgotten about this piece: SOME ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH UNDERSTOOD AS COMMUNION

Looking at the pre-conciliar teaching noted above, I find it difficult (read: impossible) to reconcile the notion of Communion as noted here with the notion of communion as noted earlier.

The only way is to presume that all heretics and schismatics are automatically in a state of invincible ignorance and are actually members of the Catholic Church without knowing it (can anyone say Anonymous Christian thesis). However, that then contradicts the Teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis and Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors.

At this point, all I can say is: The principles of Ecumenism logically lead to paragraphs 17 and 18.  These principles are what I am studying for another post in order to plumb the depths of their continuity.


Maybe I'm wrong and someone with deeper knowledge can clear up the confusion.

P^3