Is the SSPX in Schism? What is the difference between Disobedience and Schism???

JMJ

There remains people ... even today ... who believe that the SSPX is in schism.

The Evidence

So ... let's go through some of the arguments put forward to support that assertion.

3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(Note 3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre ... have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(Note 4) Vatican: Ecclesia Dei Adflicta

So ... Pope St. John Paul II wrote that the disobedience implies a rejection of the Roman primacy and therefore constitutes a schismatic act. This is followed by the reference to the Canon 751 in the 1982 code of canon law.

Note 3: Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Things are vague about what constitutes submission to the Supreme Pontiff. The clear items are when the Pope issues commands and decrees related to Faith and Morals with the intention to bind.

Note 4: Canon 1382 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law deals with the consecration of a bishop without papal mandate. Specifically, it states that a bishop who consecrates someone as a bishop without the required papal mandate, and the person who receives such consecration, incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. This means the excommunication is incurred automatically upon the commission of the act, without the need for a formal declaration.

Counter Point

Point 1 The Missing Canon

So, the first problem is that Canon 751 was not cited in the Canonical Warning.

Canonical Warning Congregation for Bishops to His Excellency Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle
Since on June 15, 1988 you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by Canon 1013 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latæ sententiæ reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with Canon 1382. I therefore entreat and beseech you in the name of Jesus Christ to weigh carefully what you are about to undertake against the laws of sacred discipline, and the very grave consequences resulting therefrom for the communion of the Catholic Church, of which you are a bishop.
Given at Rome, from the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, June 17, 1988.
By Mandate of the Supreme Pontiff,
Bernardin Card. Gantin

So, what what we have here is a law that "changed" after the fact and the Canonical warning. Even in the Catholic Church, I don't think a person can be guilty after the fact.

Point 2 Implied Is Not a Fact

The second point that I would make is that PSJP2 stated that the act of consecration without Pontifical Mandate "... implies in practice a rejection of the Roman primacy ...". I fail to see how that assertion can be made in the face of the actual intentions stated by Archbishop Lefebvre before he consecrated the four bishops. In other words, "implies" means that something wasn't stated explicitly. So now we have a canonical assertion that Archbishop Lefebvre believed something other than what he stated.

Point 3 The Missing Canon Revisited

My third point is that, when PSJP2 mentioned that they incurred the penalty of excommunication, he only cites canon 1382, not Canon 751. So it doesn't figure in the excommunication.

Point 4 Rome Says Nope

My fourth and final point is that when I asked the CDF about this in 2014 ... I received the following reply stating that the SSPX is not in full communion. Now I know that some say it is code for schism and I would ask - prove it. Yes, Rome has used this phrase to include groups that are either objectively schismatic or heretical ... as well as the SSPX which is neither. So we have term used to collect them all together.

I will be the first to acknowledge that the SSPX is not in a state of full communion. It is obvious to anyone who understands how the Catholic Church is contituted.

Point 5 Talking Heads Aside

I know that there are many reputable people who have made the assertion that the SSPX is schismatic etc. In the face of the above, I fail to see how their assertions align with the reality.

Conclusion

While many want to believe that the SSPX is in schism, the facts noted above just don't support the belief and assertions. When I first heard that people were saying that the SSPX was in schism because of Ecclesia Dei, I responded simply that it was a scare tactic. Looking above I have reached the same conclusion again ... 37 years later.

Hopefully, Pope Leo XIV will cut the Schismatic Gordian Knot and enact the 2014 agreement without the footnotes that changed the meaning of the agreement.

P^3

PS. I have discussed disobedience in this collection (link) and would like to draw your attention to this summary Refresher (link). Disobedience is just that, disobedience. It does not automatically imply a rejection of the authority of the superior, but that a higher authority requires obedience.

If that were not the case, then all the bishops who fought Pope Benedict XVI were schismatic :-)

Reference

https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2015/07/a-look-back-cardinal-lara-and-sspx.html

https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2017/10/is-sspx-in-schism.html

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/imply

"Father, Should I Attend That Mass?" Advice on Attending Non-SSPX Latin Masses

+ JMJ I see that the 'resistors' are in a tizzy because Fr. Robinson used them as an example instead of the sedevacantists. What is interesting is that you can apply the exact same reasons against going to a sede mass as that of the 'resistors'. Namely: On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith . Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their (A) spirit, their (B) preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the (C) priesthood and (D) episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful. Yep, looking at A,B,C and D the shoe fits. On this basis the "resistors" = "sedevacantists". P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org A companion article to a recent "Questions with ...

Correcting Caricatures of the SSPX

+ JMJ Introduction First, a little background on the FSSP St. John Vianney Chapel in Mission Hill Kansas. After the 1988 consecrations and the foundation of the FSSP there was a consistent trend of Dioceses allowing the SSPX to run chapels and churches near SSPX locations. As with any 'organizational change' there were those who didn't agree with the change and no longer sought the sacraments from the SSPX. I heard from friends that in that era there was a lot of anger and tension (on both sides) between the St. Mary's SSPX and Mission Hill FSSP. Second, there have been caricatures of the SSPX position (some are evident below) in which personal opinions of SSPX priests and laity are taken as the official position or conflated with those of sedevacantists or 'resistance'. Recent Perspectives of the SSPX Position In the shadow of the consecrations a fever pitch accusations and opinions how surfaced - many of which include caricatures of the SSPX positions, of w...

SSPX: Why Is the SSPX So Criticized?

+ JMJ As long as you are ok with what happens in other Catholic Churches, Traditional Catholics will be left 'alone'. This is a paraphrase of words spoken by an Archbishop to Traditional Catholics (with a sprinkling of SSPX) who had requested the Traditional Latin Mass under Summorum Pontificum. This reflects that attitude of the Church towards anyone who takes issue with some of the ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium. If you reject the papacy but are ok with V2, the New Mass, and what Rome has stated since 1965 - then you are welcome. Question some of the more abiguous statements and ask for Rome to realise that a circle is not a square - then you are in for a world of hurt. This is where the SSPX exists and has existed from almost its very first moments. Pointing out contradictions with previous magisterium is not acceptable - under any condition. Why? Because it will cause the whole V2 house of cards to fall. I guess only when the contradic...

Stories: Early Days of Tradition Part 8 - Convention Centre Chapel

+ JMJ I came to Tradition a few years after they had bought a chapel. My wife told me of the earlier years when Fr. Normandin would come to town and Mass would be held in a room at the convention centre. He'd start by blessing the room and then proceed with Mass. This went on for a while before the one of the faithful found a small hall that would suit just fine. They pooled their money and bought the building. Then came the work as the retiree's refinished the floor, setup the sactuary. Oh, did I mention that I heard that the hall had been used by a motorcycle gang? The floor needed a lot of work. I remember seeing pictures of the founders working to make the hall into a fitting place for the Sacrifice of the Mass. That little chapel would be a refuge like many others serviced by Fr. Normandin. From Thunderbay, Ontrario to Nanaimo, British Columbia - the SSPX chapels are all the results of Fr. Normandin's missionary work in those desperate times. Without h...

How many more must die for the throne? or How to combat FUD!

+ JMJ How many more must die for the throne? (Movie Quote: Prince Caspian) The Spread of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt I've seen a lot of FUD spreading across the intergnat on various stats etc. So let's put this in context ... especially the perspective of those people in positions of authority who need to make decisions to protect the lives of their citizens. Yep, this is going to be that type of post. Like it or not the leaders of our governments have their authority from God. So, as Catholics should know, you need to have a very good reason to deliberately disobey the orders of their superiors. This is basic St. Thomas Aquinas ... so don't blame me for discussing things from a Catholic perspective. The leaders of our countries have taken action to protect the vulnerable of our countries. As much as the young and not-so-young may whine and complain - I have to ask how many more of our elderly have to die? What the armchair virologists and ec...

Tradicat

Search This Blog