+
JMJ
Introduction
In Part 1, after reviewing sources and historical documents, I concluded that disobedience to a direct order from the Pope is not, in and of itself, a schismatic act. More is needed:
In this case the person is guilty of disobedience, but not of schism, even though he persists in his refusal; for he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the head of the Church.
... What the Society of Saint Pius X has done, and will continue to do, is nothing other than an extraordinary initiative for the salvation of souls, amidst the doctrinal and moral confusion into which the Church is plunged. We in no way claim to substitute ourselves for the Church, and we have no ambition other than to remain faithful to her. ... In conscience, we did not believe we could evade the moral duty we owe to souls, as we have already explained, both privately and publicly, to Your Holiness. ... I remain, Most Holy Father, your most devoted son in the Lord.
Other thinkers, formally trained and far more qualified canonists have reached the same conclusion (Rorate Caeli: Canonical Analysis):
It is noteworthy that Bishop Fellay is charged not under can. 1387 but under can. 1364 §1, the general schism provision. This is a legally significant divergence. The Code does not automatically treat unauthorized episcopal consecration as schism. Cardinal Fernández's invocation of Ecclesia Dei Adflicta (1988) to characterize the act as schismatic relies on a logical leap (from an act of disobedience to a wholesale rejection of papal primacy, but it is not a true leap, since they have reaffirmed their fidelity to the Holy Father) that the text of can. 751 does not support. Canon 751 defines schism as a withdrawal of submission: a total, wilful repudiation of authority, not a single act of disobedience. Disobedience and schism are distinct offenses. One can say ‘I cannot do this’ while still acknowledging an authority; that is not the same as saying ‘You have no authority over me.’
With this analysis behind us, I want to explore what the future may hold for the Church, the Pope and the SSPX.
The Church
There have already been calls for the abrogation (my word) of Traditiones Custodes. Given the irreverence for Pope Benedict XVI and the pre-V2 liturgy, I don't think this will happen.
What I do think is likely is that the canonically regular SSPX clones will find themselves under increased scrutiny for any 'schismatic' tendencies and pressure to accept the Spirit of Vatican II.
The Germans et al will continue on their current path towards something ... maybe a true rejection of the Pope ... or they'll just get their way, ignore Rome and Rome won't do anything.
The Pope
Pope Leo XIV is now the latest in a growing list of Popes who have been unable to reconcile the Second Vatican Council with the sensum fidei of Traditional Catholics. The closest to come had been Pope Benedict XVI with Summorum Pontificum (link), accompanying letter (link) and Universae Ecclesiae (link).
In each case, Agatha Christi Indult (1970), Quattuor abhinc annos (1982), Summorum Pontificum (2007). Universae Ecclesiae (2011), Traditiones Custodes (2021), a Pope has responded to either promoters or detractors of the pre-conciliar thinking and liturgy.
Benedict was the first Pope to accept Archbishop Lefebvre's suggestion to try the 'experiment of tradition'. Depending on who you were, the response was encouraging or terrifying. That's what got the attention of someone - either Pope Francis or someone able to influence him - to write and issue Traditiones Custodes.
Yes, the Bishops, enough to make a difference, are afraid of the Tridentine Mass and, I think, what the Tridentine Mass embodies. In this terror mistakes are made. Not responding to the SSPX, insisting on unconditional acceptance of the documents of V2, declining to approve the episcopal consecrations, excommunicating the SSPx et al are all the actions that repeat the mistakes of the previous pontificates.
This was to be expected.
Leo has now made his first step on this path. The question is what is the next step that he will take? Will he continue what others of done before him ... or will the Vicar of Christ change his course and the course of the entire Church on this crisis.
The SSPX and traditionalism in general is a problem that won't go away and had demonstrated a tenacity to challenge even Rome's ability to out wait an opponent.
The question is will the Church that is open and accepting to everyone except the SSPX, change and accept them?
To not accept the pre-conciliar sets the conflict on the same familiar course. To change will change the course of the entire Church.
The SSPX
The path for the SSPX will only change if the path of the Church changes and, in effect there is at least a partial alignment.
Key point will be for the SSPX to continue to walk the knifes edge between sedevacantism and compromise.
In a way, the work of the SSPX is simpler and direct.
Don't change the principles.
Comments
Post a Comment