Restoration of SSPX Faculties

"A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime,motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins."

My friends, this is good news. Undoubtedly, good news.

There are those who are arguing that this is a bad because it represents a further "concession" of Rome and a further "victory" for the SSPX. Yes, this is a concession from Rome; and yes, it certainly is a victory for the SSPX - but Rome and the SSPX are not "against" each other, as if the SSPX "wins" and Rome "loses." People who think that way see these two groups in fundamental and irreconcilable opposition; they do not want the SSPX to reconcile with Rome. They want the SSPX to go off into oblivion (or for Rome to).

My friends, I have argued in the past on this blog that I believed the SSPX were in an objective state of schism. I have argued for a traditionalism that is not yoked to the SSPX. I did not personally come to Catholic tradition through the SSPX nor do I feel I personally owe anything to Archbishop Lefebvre. Still, no matter what position you hold, this is good news. It is good because it is legitimate. It is undeniable. It removes us from the realm of speculation and debate and puts us on solid footing with something.

There are some who will say that Francis should not have restored their faculties for confession without first settling their irregular canonical status. There are those who will huff and say that they didn't need to have their faculties restored because they were never validly revoked. Whatever. I am going to rejoice in this, and rejoice in it fully, without any "yeah buts" or "should've beens."

It is ironic that Francis, in his obvious lack of any care for the specifics of doctrine, is better poised to reconcile the SSPX than Benedict, for whom every doctrinal issue had to be settled first. Francis' approach to the SSPX has only been generous thus far; it is not perfect. He no doubt sees the SSPX and traditionalism as one of many "ways" of "expressing" the infinite "creativity" of the Holy Spirit's movement within Catholicism. Trads are one member of the group under the big tent - a stodgy, ill-manner, sour-faced, funereal, rosary counting member, but a member none the less. And there is room under the tent for us, just like there is for charismatics, Novus Ordo Catholics, and every other little group within the Church (whatever he means by that word).

I am fairly certain this is Francis' ecclesiology. And from the point of view of the SSPX's situation, it is good, because it means that Francis values getting them in the tent rather than making sure they agree on everything before they can come in.

I am going out on a limb here, but I believe that once faculties are restored, it will be difficult to remove them again without some kind of precipitating event or crisis. Francis cited the SSPX's excellent character and behavior as reasons for restoring their faculties. I assume the next year is a time of testing and probation for the SSPX. If nothing goes wrong, I would be surprised if they are not fully reconciled before the end of Francis' pontificate. Is that too optimistic? If even Benedict, who was sympathetic to the Traditional Mass, could not reconcile them, how could Francis? Simple. Francis is way, way more likely to simply reconcile them immediately and work out the details later. Again, he doesn't care about the doctrinal details. He just wants them in the house. He is more likely to grant them unconditional reconciliation; no preambles, no agreements, just "come on in and we'll sort it out later."

Sure, some will say it is a plot - that he wants them regularized so he can begin dismantling them, as he did with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. I don't know; I grant that's a possibility, but my in my gut I do not think this is the case. I suspect, motivated by some happy-clappy "We are one in the spirit; we are one in the Lord" sort of mood, he just wants everybody together and everything else can ultimately be debated later.

One final point - I have argued in the past that the SSPX are/were in a state of schism. Many Catholics are divided on this, and honestly, not just because of axes to grind for or against the Society, but because the Magisterium itself has given contrary opinions on the matter and refused to definitively clarify their position. But one thing is clear: after yesterday's announcement, there is no way I can consider the SSPX to currently be in schism.

The reason is simple: the Pontiff cannot give faculties to a group truly in schism. If they were in schism, reconciliation would have to happen first. If the Pope wanted to make judgments pertaining to the faculties of some oriental schism or some other break-away group, reconciliation with Rome would be a sine qua non of such discussions. Can you imagine the Pope talking about the granting or removing of faculties to a group that had not even been reunited with Rome? It would be unthinkable; nonsense, even. Like restoring faculties to the Old Catholics without first getting them back into some sort of communion.

By granting the SSPX faculties, Francis has demonstrated his belief that they are not outside the pale. Not that they are in a perfect situation, either. The pope had said in his statement that he hopes the SSPX will recover "full communion" with Rome, which obviously speaks to the point that the Society's position is still irregular and that they are not in perfect communion. There is still work to be done. But I can't see how they can still be in schism.

That's not to say I believe they were never in schism, but I cannot see how they are still in that state now. Of course, there is one other option to consider - that neither the Pope, nor anyone at the Vatican, knows what their true status is; in fact, "status" may not even be a concept that this pope cares about. After all, this is a man who calls a Protestant pastor "my brother bishop." That words like "schism", "communion", "reconciliation" and so on no longer mean anything and anyone trying to sort out of objective status of the group is trying to nail Jell-O to a tree.

I do not know how to sort out the particulars; any attempt to do so presupposes a kind of consistency on the part of the Magisterium and a uniformity of the definitions of words and canonical terms, something nobody can presume upon anymore.

That is why it is enough for me to simply say, this is a good thing. I pray for my brethren in the SSPX. I pray they will find away, in the wisdom of God, to be fully reconciled in the Church with a regularized status in full union with Rome and exercising a legitimate ministry. This is a very powerful step, and it is one I rejoice in unconditionally.

Traditionalists and the SSPX

In the context of the posts I have been doing lately on the SSPX and the nature of schism, an interesting question was raised: to what degree must a Traditionalist deny the SSPX is in schism in order to be a "sincere" Traditionalist? The question was posed in light of my article that affirmed (albeit tentatively) that the Society of St. Pius X is in a state of formal schism. A reader who disagreed somewhat with my assessment made the comment that one could not be a "sincere" Traditionalist and at the same time believe that the SSPX is in schism. This is the question I want to deal with here - is this assertion in fact true? To what degree is one's identity as a Traditionalist bound up with taking a specific position on the SSPX question?

Let us recall, in the first place, that the status of the SSPX is ultimately a canonical question. It depends upon whether or not, in the events leading up to the 1988 excommunciations and afterward, the SSPX did or did not meet the canonical requirements that place one in schism. It is a question that is legal and juridical in nature. 

Now if we examine what it means to be a "Traditionalist", we see that being a Traditionalist is an issue that is primarily devotional and affective. Whether we define it narrowly as those who are "attached to the Latin liturgical tradition" as John Paul II did in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, or more broadly as those who enthusiastically receive the entirety of Catholic tradition, cultural, liturgical, historical and theological, the fact remains that to be "Traditionalist" is ultimately a preference or affection for a certain manner of being Catholic that we hold as being superior to all other ways because it is most consistent with our history and the practice of the saints.

Once we note the difference between the two issues, one juridical and one devotional, we can easily see that they do not have a direct correlation. Our devotion, affection or passion for a particular manner of practicing our Faith does not have any direct bearing on the legal question of any group's canonical status. We easily understand this distinction in other areas of life: the fact that a referee might be devoted to one team does not mean that he is bound to take that team's side in a dispute about the rules of the game; a college professor may disagree with the position we take on a research paper, but we expect them to grade it based on objective criteria (whether or not we have followed the guidelines), not on his personal dictates.

A more famous example from our own history: in 1770, several British soldiers were on trial in Boston for their part in the Boston Massacre. Many colonists, fed up with British bullying, were clamoring for the death penalty. Yet John Adams, defense attorney for the accused, got the men acquitted by making a clear distinction between the colonists' hatred of the British and the legal question of whether the soldiers were guilty of murder. He famously stated, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence" ('Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770).

As in the case of the British soldiers, here again I would say that "facts are stubborn things." However we feel about the SSPX, the position we take on their canonical status cannot and should not be influenced by our own passions on matters liturgical, theological, or whatever. When looking at whether or not the SSPX is in schism, I do not concern myself with how bad the Church was when they went into schism, nor whether or not they were right to seek to preserve the 1962 Missal, nor the particular virtues of Lefebvre or the vices of Bugnini, nor any of these sorts of considerations - I only consider whether the act of consecrating four bishops illicitly was a schismatic act, from a legal standpoint, in isolation from these other questions. Some have criticized me for taking this narrowly "formal" approach, but I think it is the only reasonable approach if we are trying to get some sort of legal-canonical precision.

Therefore, I do not think it is fair for one to say that you must believe the SSPX is not in schism to be considered a sincere Traditionalist. Imagine being told, "If you do not accept the validity of the Medjugorje apparitions, you cannot consider yourself devoted to Our Lady." The statement would be preposterous! However we feel about Medjugorje, we understand that whatever the status of that apparition is, it is distinct from Marian devotion itself, which is a much larger genus.

Or, to use another example, recall Fr. Corapi before his fall from grace was one of the most well-respected and forceful voices of orthodoxy in the American Church. Yet (and I have seen this happening already), how silly would it be to say, "No one who really cares about bringing the American Church back to orthodoxy could possibly believe Father Corapi is guilty." Regardless of how devoted we are to doctrinal orthodoxy, we know that our personal commitment is logically distinct from the question of whether Fr. Corapi was banging some hooker and doing a lot of blow. The two issues are logically different and how devoted we are to one ought not have any relevance to our position on the other.

This question is actually ground zero of where Traditionalism stands today - and I emphasize today, because though things may have been different before 1984 (Quattuor abhinc annos), or 1988, today the SSPX cannot in any way claim to be the sole custodians of the 1962 Missal. There are numerous societies and fraternities in existence who use the 1962 Missal and are in good standing with Rome; the FSSP are the most well-known, but we could also site the Christi Pauperum Militum Ordo (Order of the Poor Knights of Christ), the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, and other such groups. Beside these, since Summorum Pontificum, use of the Traditional Latin Mass has been exploding all over the western world. Only a few weeks ago I chronicled its extensive spread in southeast Michigan in parishes that have absolutely no affiliation with the SSPX. Many more parishes are beginning to offer the Extraordinary Form.

In short, the faithful no longer have to turn to the SSPX for the Extraordinary Form. The SSPX do not have a monopoly on it, and frankly, I think this truth makes them uneasy because it pushes them a little bit further into irrelevance. All over the Church the Traditional Latin Mass is being rediscovered, there is an explosion of vocations from traditional parishes, a vibrant interest in Thomism among the young, and in many places none of it has anything to do with the SSPX. The Church is being renewed (albeit slowly) and the SSPX is getting left behind.

Just as Marian devotion is a much broader genus than devotion to Medjugorje, so Traditionalism is much, much broader than the SSPX, or even than the Extraordinary Form. The EF Mass may have been the flash-point for Traditionalism to take hold, and the SSPX may have been the first standard-bearers, but this is no longer the case.

The Traditionalist movement need not be bound up with the fate of the SSPX; indeed, it ought not be. The goal of Traditionalists at this point in time should be to nurture a Traditionalism that is a truly positive force for renewal within the Church in a manner that has nothing to do with the Society in its current state. In fact, this has ever been one of my overarching aims in writing this blog - to let the world know that there are Catholics out there who love our Tradition and are not SSPX or Sedevacantists. Too long have we let these groups, these little parts, speak for the whole. I pray for a speedy reconciliation for the SSPX, but my identity as a Traditionalist Catholic is not bound up with their Society or their fate.

Which brings us to the final question - what is it to be a Traditionalist? This is a question that many are still working out the answer to. Beyond noting that it is important to make the distinction between Traditional and non-Traditional Catholicism (see here), what does it mean to be a Traditionalist? I can only answer this question based on my own convictions.

Traditionalism to me means that the liturgical riches of the old rite are positive goods, capable of most perfectly sanctifying souls and creating saints, and should not only be preserved but promoted actively as a means of renewing the life of the Church.

Traditionalism to me means that the lives, writings and deeds of the saints and fathers of old are more inspiring and helpful in the spiritual life than anything that has been churned out since 1962.

Traditionalism to me means acknowledging that a disturbing spirit of compromise and ambiguity has pervaded the Magisterium since the Second Vatican Council, which has had the effect of watering down the Church's teaching, confusing the faithful, and at least giving the impression that the Church's position on many important issues has changed since the Council.

Traditionalism to me means also acknowledging that, in some part, the popes and Magisterium themselves have contributed to this confusion by means of ambiguous statements, failing to offer decisive leadership when it was needed, and further confusing the faithful by actions and gestures that send a signal different from that taught officially.

Traditionalism to me means acknowledging that traditional expressions of Catholic spirituality are the most suited to producing balanced, well-formed individuals on the path to sanctity.

Finally, Traditionalism to me means positively affirming and valuing all parts of our history and tradition, not sweeping some under the rug, apologizing for others, and trying to pretend like the Church of the old days was fundamentally different from the Church as it should be today. Not to say that everything in Church history is praiseworthy, but over all, Traditionalism means agreeing that the way it was done then is better than the way it is being done now.

Note that none of this has anything to do with whether or not a certain Society is or is not in the canonical state of schism.

Are the SSPX in schism?

This article is a follow up to my recent post on the question of schism. In that post, I looked at what constitutes a schism broadly as preparation for an examination of whether or not the Society of St. Pius X are in a state of schism. I defined schism as disobedience of legitimate episcopal authority while at the same time attempting to set up a rival episcopal authority outside of the jurisdiction of the hierarchy.

Before looking at the question of the status of the SSPX in particular, I wanted to address some questions and comments from the last post, specifically those centering on my definition of schism. In that post, I made the following comment:

"The SSPX argument that they are not in schism because they have not denied the existence of legitimate authority within the Church is a weak argument that creates a definition of schism so narrow that virtually no one other than Sedevacantists would fit it"

One commenter took objection to this statement and said,  "No, the eastern schismatic churches deny that the Pope has jurisdictional authority. That's millions of people."

I say this is not the same. The eastern churches deny the pope has jurisdictional authority over them. They do not deny that there is a pope, or that that pope does indeed possess jurisdictional authority. They simply deny that his jurisdictional authority extends to them. All orthodox acknowledge the existence of a valid pope who has valid powers and jurisdiction; some even see him as having a kind of moral primacy. This is quite different from denying that there is a pope (i.e., denying that legitimate authority exists). It is one thing to deny a legitimate authority exists; it is another thing to acknowledge the existence of that authority but say you are exempt from his jurisdiction. Both positions would be schismatic, but the SSPX (from what I have read) tend to focus on the more narrow definition of schism as denying the existence of legitimate authority, which would of course exempt them from being schismatic since they have not denied that the pope truly is the Vicar of Christ and holds legitimate authority.

Referring to my statement in the first post that the essence of schism was in creating a "rival hierarchy", another commenter made the following statement:

"The SSPX are not setting up an alternative hierarchy like the Anti-Popes et al. They are not creating a rival or new power entity that assumes papal power or something just like it...Fellay is not saying he is Pope nor are they giving up on the Catholic Church and becoming their own Church...they are not constructing an alternative or supplemental hierarchy, and they acknowledge universal jurisdiction."

I disagree. I never claimed that a rival hierarchy meant a rival papacy. The head of the hierarchy is the pope, of course, but bishops are the heart of the hierarchy; the pope himself is a bishop. I suppose a better phrase would have been "rival episcopacy" instead of "rival hierarchy." The Church's most well-known schisms usually involve a dispute about the Bishop of Rome, but numerically speaking, most schisms in the Church's history did not involve the See of Rome, but rather disputes about the authority or validity of a single bishop in a single diocese.

Also, regarding what the SSPX "acknowledges", it does not really matter what is acknowledged or confessed because schism is ultimately an act and a state of being, not something one believes or doesn't believe (like heresy). A schismatic can acknowledge whatever they wish and it may not change anything.

Ultimately it really is irrelevant whether the SSPX tried to "assume papal power." If we follow the definition of creating a rival or outside episcopacy/hierarchy, the simple consecration of four bishops against the explicit commands of the Holy Father does constitute setting up a rival episcopacy. Please note that at this time, I am only considering the act itself, not whether the intention of Archbishop Lefebvre justified the act. So, considered on the surface, it does appear that Lefebvre was setting up a rival episcopacy.

The Catholic Encylopedia makes the following statement: "Not every disobedience is a 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."

Notice that it does not say a denial of the existence of legitimate authority; it says only a denial of that authority's right to command in a given situation. So schism need not be somebody positively asserting "I deny that there is a Pope" or "I deny that Bishop X is a legitimate bishop." Schism can simply be the position of "I deny that Bishop X's authority extends to this issue and therefore I refuse obedience." This is usually coupled with the setting up of a new, outside authority. Now, as we have shown in the previous post, what the issue is upon which obedience is denied has a lot to do with whether the act is schismatic or just disobedient.

The problem here is that the word schism is a amorphous thing. Some take the approach of "if it looks walks like a schism and quacks like a schism, it is a schism," This is a good rule of thumb, but not helpful when the popes and other heads of Vatican commissions are saying different things, and when there is a distinction between the canonical state of schism, the formal sin of schism, and the use of the word schism in a very loose and sloppy way to denote general disagreement (e.g., the "schism" between Thomists and Personalists in Catholic philosophy.

Contradictory statements from the Magisterium muddle things. For example, John Paul II's 1988 document Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, in which the excommunications were pronounced, clearly says the SSPX are in schism:

"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" (Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, 3).

Again, it is not disobedience simply that makes schism, but disobedience in an issue that touches on the ecclesiastical unity of the Church - in this case, "the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated." This is why the argument that the SSPX can't be in schism because otherwise all the dissenting priests and bishops would also have to be in schism doesn't hold water. Every schism is disobedience, but only certain types of disobedience constitute schism.

The 1988 ordinations are again called schismatic in section 4 of the same document:

"It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church" (Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, 4).

John Paul II seems to think the act of ordaining bishops without the approval of the Holy See constituted a schismatic act and had broken the ecclesial bond. In the following paragraph, he plainly calls the SSPX movement a schism and states that formal adherence to it carries the penalty of excommunication. John Paul II states:

"In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law" (Ecclesia Dei Adflicta 5:C).

It should be noted that people cannot be guilty of "formal adherence" to a schism unless a schism formally exists.

Cardinal Ratzinger also referred to the SSPX as a schism in his 1988 comments to the Bishops of Chile. His statements are worth quoting at length:

"...the movement led by Lefebvre has separated itself by a clean break with the Church. A Christian never can, or should, take pleasure in a rupture. Even though it is absolutely certain the fault cannot be attributed to the Holy See. Thus we will be able to offer a place within the Church to those who are seeking and demanding it, and succeed in destroying all reason for schism. We can make such schism pointless by renewing the interior realities of the Church....If once again we succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism of Lefebvre will not be of long duration" (Speech to the Bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988).

It is a very interesting point that Ratzinger makes here - by renewing Tradition and being faithful to the Church's own "interior realities", the necessity for groups such as the SSPX becomes moot. But that is not the point - the point is that he considers the SSPX separated from the Church "by a clean break" and uses the word schism three times. I would be tempted to say that Ratzinger here just meant schism in a generic, not canonical, sense, if he did not say " the movement led by Lefebvre has separated itself by a clean break." Here he is speaking of a real, ecclesial "rupture", not just a simple disagreement.

Fast forward to 2007 and the pontificate of Benedict XVI, where we had this confusing statement from Cardinal Hoyos, who seemed to say that the SSPX were not in schism, although they had committed a schismatic act. Even so, he warns that the "danger of schism" is very great. Let's look at this statement:

"The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebvre who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics. I do, however, share St. Jerome’s fear that heresy leads to schism and vice versa. The danger of a schism is big, such as a systematic disobedience vis-à-vis the Holy Father or by a denial of his authority. It is after all a service of charity, so that the Priestly Society gains full communion with the Holy Father by acknowledging the sanctity of the new Mass" (From Rorate, Feb. 2007)

This is very confusing. He says they are not schismatics, but then says the consecrations were a schismatic act. Then he says that the SSPX are not heretics, but that heresy might lead to schism "and vice versa." If he just said the SSPX are not heretics, then why is he worried that "heresy might lead to schism"? Being that this was a live statement, not a pre-written one, did he perhaps mean to say  he is worried that "schism might lead to heresy"? That comment would make way more sense. But then he says that "the danger of a schism is big," so I guess they are not in schism? But if they are not in schism and are not heretics, then why the comment about "heresy leads to schism and vice versa"? It makes no sense at all.

In case you are not following why this makes no sense, suppose I replace the words schism and heresy with marijuana and cocaine and SSPX with Johnny, and excommunicated with arrested. In that case: "Johnny does not use marijuana. Johnny has not been arrested. He does not use cocaine. I do, however, share the fear that cocaine use may lead to marijuana, and vice versa." Hmmm...if Johnny uses neither marijuana nor cocaine, why the fear that one may lead to the other? If there is no schism and no heresy, how can you be worried that "heresy may lead to schism"?

Then again, Cardinal Hoyos doesn't always make the clearest statements.He later made the following quip: "We take care of those who did not wish to follow Archbishop Lefebvre -- which is not exactly a schism." Not exactly a schism? I say this is not exactly the clearest language.

We could attribute this to just the fact that these were off the cuff remarks. If I were to weigh these confused statements against the official pronouncement of John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, I would take John Paul II in a heartbeat. But, being that Hoyos was the head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei at the time, would he have made these sorts of comments without Benedict's approval? Could it be that his comments, no matter how muddled, are a sign that the pope himself may be rethinking this matter?

I think it is clear that Pope Benedict himself may have rethought his position on this matter since the 1988 address to the Chilean bishops. In that address, he said, "[I]t is absolutely certain the fault cannot be attributed to the Holy See." But by 2007, he had presumably had nineteen years to reflect upon the situation with the SSPX and made the following comment in the introductory letter to Summorum Pontificum. I have bolded the portion I think is relevant to Ratzinger's 1988 comments that the SSPX schism was not in any way the fault of the Holy See:

"I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden."

This is pivotal. In 1988 Ratzinger says "it is absolutely certain the fault cannot be attributed to the Holy See", but in 2007 he says, "One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame." Benedict has clearly changed his position since 1988 and now thinks that the Church itself shares part of the blame for the schism.

This seems to get to the heart of the problem: the SSPX do seem to be in schism, but it seems now that many in the hierarchy think that the events leading up to the schism were based on misunderstandings and errors on both sides that mitigate the culpability of Lefebvre and the four bishops.  Are the SSPX formally and canonically in schism? I believe so. From history, what Lefebvre did in 1988 in consecrating four bishops illicitly does fit the profile for schism exactly. Canonically I think it is an open and shut case, and the argument that Lefebvre was acting because he perceived a state of emergency does not change things. It is the Magisterium, ultimately the Pope, who decide whether such fears are justified, and even if they were, this would have relevance only in determining whether or not Lefebvre and the four bishops are personally guilty of the sin of schism, not whether or not the organization is canonically in the state of schism. At the end of the day, this is the Pope's call. But on the other hand, Benedict and many in the current Magisterium seem to want to back away from the hard language of 1988 in recognition that "not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity...omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden."

This is similar to the case with the Eastern Orthodox in a way - formally, they may be in schism, but historically, we can cite many factors and misunderstandings on both sides that brought the schism about. That does not change the canonical reality of the schism, but it does mean that both sides have to look at what they can do to rectify the situation, and acknowledge that there was culpability on both sides.

I do want to respond to two points that are commonly brought up by the SSPX in this discussion. The first is that the SSPX cannot formally be in schism because Benedict XVI in 2007 stated that that Mass of John XXIII was never officially abrogated. Since the SSPX were persecuted for their desire to use what was always a valid Mass, there is no way they could be in schism. How can the SSPX be in trouble for adhering to a liturgy that was, in Benedict's words, "in principle, always permitted"?

The answer is, of course, that whatever the SSPX might have had to put up with for their defense of the old Mass, the excommunications and the charge of schism have nothing to do with their use of the old liturgy but rather with the 1988 consecrations. If the charges of schism stemmed from the use of the old Mass, they would be weak indeed; but they do not stem from the use of the old Mass by the SSPX but rather from the illicit 1988 episcopal ordinations, which were setting up an illicit episcopacy and as such were schismatic.

Speaking of schismatic acts, some SSPX will say that, yes, the ordinations were a schismatic act, but the act is distinguished from the status. You can have a schismatic act, but that does not necessarily confer the schismatic status.

Can act be separated from status? I don't think so; in fact, act is precisely what confers status. If you commit the act or murder, you obtain the status of murderer by the act. An act of theft gives you the status of a thief; it is professing heresy that gives you the status of a heretic, and a schismatic act is what confers the status of schismatic, especially since schism is not ultimately about what you believe but what you do.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also notes that schism is both an act and a state, indicating that the two go together because the separation is the result of the act: "either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act."

I personally have no skin in this game. I was a Traditionalist before I knew what the SSPX was, and for me, the SSPX has never had a role to play in my love of the Church's Traditional liturgy or piety. I don't think Traditionalism necessarily has to do with the SSPX and I reject any attempts to identify Traditionalism with the SSPX categorically. Of course I would like to see a reconciliation (and by the way, if they are not schismatic, what are we negotiating about?), but I have no vested interest in defending the SSPX or in condemning them. I simply and calling this like I see it. In light of the history of other schisms, in light of statements from the popes and just common sense, I do not see how the SSPX can not be considered a schism. I think the confused language we are seeing out of the Magisterium recently has more to do with the pope's willingness to state that the Church itself has some blame in this matter rather than in denying the canonical reality of the schism.

One last thought. Heresy and schism usually go together, as everyone from St. Irenaeus, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and St. Thomas have always taught. Though Jerome distinguished between "mixed schism" and "pure schism", he stated that the distinction was mainly mental and in reality schism almost always accompanies heresy. If this is true, what about SSPX? Is there a corresponding heresy in the SSPX? If there is (and I say if), it is their persistent insistence that they, not the Holy Father, are the final arbiters of how canon law is to be understood and interpreted.

So, that's my two cents. I say it is a schism, but I admit I may be wrong. If anyone can explain to me why they are not, I would be interested in hearing it.

What is Schism?

I was initially going to do this post on the question of whether the SSPX were truly in a state of schism or not. However, upon reading a lot of the commentary on this question from individuals on both sides of the question, I realized that there is a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes a schism. Those defending the SSPX and those who say the SSPX are in schism both have different definitions of what constitutes a schism. Therefore, this post will serve as preliminary to a future post about the SSPX schism question; today we will simply look at formulating an adequate definition of schism.

One point of contention is that too often schism is defined as simple disobedience. Defining schism as simple disobedience is simply not sufficient, as we will see. This definition is what brings up the oft-repeated SSPX objection that if disobedience constitutes schism then 90% of the Church is in schism because of the disobedience of liberal priests, bishops, etc. The SSPX defenders are correct here; simple disobedience cannot equate to schism.

For example, let's say a priest is instructing his congregation in the Church's precept on attending Mass every Sunday, which is a discipline of the universal Church. Now suppose Joe Smith in the pews hears the legitimate instruction of the Church but chooses to disobey it. He scoffs at the precept and misses Mass regularly, knowing that the Church teaches otherwise.

No one would deny that Joe Smith is being disobedient to the Church's authority - but does this simple disobedience put him in a state of schism? I do not know of anyone who would use the phrase "schism" when applied to this simple disobedience. We could think of many other scenarios: a couple contracepting, people refusing ever to give money to the Church, neglecting the religious formation of children, eating meat on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday. All of these things constitute disobedience, but none of them are considered schism. Even in the rather severe case of the women religious in the United States, with all their disobedience, nobody has (yet) started throwing around the word schism. Therefore, I think we can say with certainty that simple disobedience does not constitute schism. Every schismatic is out of union with the Church, but not everyone who is out of union with the Church is schismatic; and not every act of disobedience breaks ecclesial unity.

But these example are all involving lay persons. Does the scenario change if the offender is a clergyman and not a lay person? Perhaps schism is brought about by disobedience on the part of the clergy.

This definition falls short also. Some examples: Suppose the bishop orders a pastor to form a parish council, but the pastor does not obey the bishop and refuses to form a parish council. Clearly, the bishop has been disobeyed, but I don't know if anybody would suggest the pastor is in schism.

Further examples: priests introducing liturgical innovations that are explicitly prohibited by their bishop and by the Holy See, pastors hosting events for dissenting organizations like Call to Action against the bishop's express command, Franciscan priests organizing pilgrimages to Medjugorje despite the prohibitions of the local ordinary. In each of these situations we have a cleric engaging in disobedience, although again none of these situations is considered a schism in the formal, canonical sense.

For an act to truly be schismatic, it need not only be a denial of obedience, but a denial of obedience to an authority coupled with a denial that the authority has the right to command obedience in a certain issue. This denial is almost always found alongside the act of the creation of a rival hierarchy, usually validly but illicitly consecrated. Let's look at the circumstances around some of the Church's principle schisms throughout history:

• The first large schism was that of Novatian, who was elected antipope in the time of Pope Cornelius (251). The sect believed Cornelius' treatment of those Christians who had lapsed in the Decian persecution was too lenient.
  
  
• The schism of Antioch (330-415) erupted when two lines of bishops, one Arian and one orthodox, disputed about who were the legitimate pastors of the Antiochan Church. The orthodox bishop, Eustathius, was deposed by the Arian party who consecrated their own bishop illicitly.
  
  
• The schism during the time of Pope Liberius was caused when the Arian party consecrated as antipope one Felix who claimed the See of Rome while Liberius was in exile. The Romans eventually got Liberius recalled and Felix was deposed.
  
  
• The Donatist schism, one of the largest of the ancient Church, began when many African Christians objected to the legitimacy of Caecilian of Carthage, since he was consecrated by a traditor. These declared his election invalid and elected their own bishop, Majorinus. The dispute spread, and soon most large cities had two hierarchies, one loyal to Caecilian, one to Majorinus. Those loyal to Majorinus were the rigorists that eventually were called Donatists (the Donatus take their name from a Bishop Donatus who succeeded Majorinus).
  
  
• The Acacian schism, the first real major east-west schism, occurred when Acacius of Constantinople continued to exercise his episcopal office despite being excommunicated by Pope Felix II over the Henoticon of Emperor Zeno.
  
  
• The Aquilean schism during the time of Pope Vigilius broke out when the bishops of Milan and Aquilea refused obedience to Pope Vigilius over the latter's condemnation of the Three Chapters. For a time they functioned as their own hierarchy independent of the pope.
  
  
• The schism of 1054, when the Greeks effectively denied that the Pope had any jurisdiction in the east.
  
  
• The schism of Anacletus (1150), which had to do with the election of an antipope.
  
  
• The Great Western Schism, of course, which was brought upon by the dispute between a pope and antipope following the return of the Church from Avignon in 1378.
  
  
• The Anglican schism, when, for a time, the Catholic Church existed side-by-side with a schismatic Church in England. This is no longer a schism, however, since the Holy Orders of the Anglican bishops went extinct after the first generation.
  
  
• The schism of the "Constitutional Church" in France following the promulgation of the Civil Constitution on the Clergy in 1790. This in effect set up two hierarchies, one loyal to the Pope and one on the state dole and under obedience to state appointed bishops who were invalidly consecrated.
  
  
• The schism of the Old Catholics, which began in 1871 after Vatican I, when the protesters against papal infallibility voted at the Council of Munich to constitute themselves a separate Church.

Note that in each and every case, the schism involves either a establishment of a valid but illicit rival hierarchy or else the formal withdrawal of an existing hierarchy from obedience to the Holy See. Schism, then, consists in an act of disobedience that results in either the withdrawal of an existing bishop or member of the hierarchy from obedience or else the establishment of a illicit rival hierarchy; this is true at least of the Church's historical schisms.

This is why the pope stated that the consecration of four bishops illicitly is a schismatic act - following the trends we saw in the historic schisms, it was an act of disobedience that took the form of establishing a hierarchy outside the pale of the pope's authority. Setting up rival, illicit hierarchy is always a schismatic act. Whether or not the SSPX did this, and to what degree a schismatic act confers ipso facto the status of schismatic, remains to be seen.

One thing that is plainly clear from looking at the history is that schism does not necessarily entail denial that an authority exists. The SSPX argument that they are not in schism because they have not denied the existence of legitimate authority within the Church is a weak argument that creates a definition of schism so narrow that virtually no one other than Sedevacantists would fit it. It is not necessary that the SSPX (or any group) deny the existence of a legitimate authority to be in schism - it is enough to disobey that authority whilst setting up a rival outside authority, even if one continues to admit the existence of the legitimate authority.

Interestingly enough, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that one does not need to formally join schismatic group or form a distinct sect to be guilty of the sin of schism: "On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinct sect, much less the creation of such a group." This means that schism seems to be on a continuum. There are certainly some schismatics at the far end, like the Old Catholics - but it also implies that one can be guilty of schism even without adhering to a formally schismatic group or founding one. I think the Encyclopedia is trying to distinguish between the sin of schism (incurred whenever there is a partisan spirit of haughty disobedience) and the canonical status of schism (established by the setting up of a rival hierarchy). Though they usually go together, they are two different concepts.

Next time we will take these principles and apply them to the situation with the SSPX, taking into account current and previous Magisterial statements on the question.

SSPX and Vatican Reconciliation Imminent?

It is official. The Vatican has offered the SSPX a personal prelature as the mechanism by which the Society of St. Pius X and Rome can be officially reconciled. The SSPX can avail itself of Rome's offer only by submitting to the much discussed "Doctrinal Preamble" that was proposed in Fall of 2011 and presumably will mean a consensus on some of key points of doctrine surrounding Vatican II.

The Doctrinal Preamble has not been made public and we have no idea what it contains, but I think we can infer that it must be very generous to the Society. If this were not the case, negotiations would have never gotten this far.  Had the Vatican's demands been too exacting, or the doctrinal conditions too stringent, or the Preamble set up in such a way as to deprive the SSPX of its fundamental charism, there is no way Bishop Fellay would have continued the talks and allowed them to go this far. An SSPX reconciliation would an impossibility were the Preamble too demanding. Thus, I think we can presume that the Preamble proposes only the most basic requirements on the Society, those minimally necessary to put them in good standing with the Church - probably an acceptance of the legitimacy and authority of Vatican II and of the Novu Ordo Missae.

If this is the case, there will still be room for discussion and interpretation of Vatican II within the Church. If the SSPX accepts the personal prelature, this certainly does not mean they are going to adopt the same outlook on everything as the mainline Church; Pope Benedict does not intend the reunion to necessitate this, nor would the SSPX agree to it if it did. As long as some basic points are agreed to by the Society, the agreement leaves in place a future discussion on the issues dear to the Society and Traditionalists.

This fact is of fundamental importance, because in essence, it means that the Pope is affirming that a valid debate about Tradition and Vatican II can take place among Catholics all in good standing with the Church. The discussion on the role and importance of Tradition will now take place within the context of the Universal Church. In allowing leeway for the SSPX to retain its charism and still be part of the dialogue on Tradition within the Church, the Pope affirms that the SSPX charism and some of their critiques of the modern Church are indeed legitimate, so long as they occur within the guidelines laid down in the Doctrinal Preamble.

Or, to put it more plainly: While we must affirm the authority and complete legitimacy of Vatican II, the agreement will signal that there is no official historiography of Vatican II.

Other opinions on the role and influence of the Council are valid. Questioning the fruitfulness of the Council will no longer equate with dissent.

But will the rest of the Society follow Fellay into union, should the personal prelature be accepted? John Allen at the National Catholic Reporter, like many mainstream commentators, treated the news and possibility of reunion with skepticism. It is amusing to me how reunion with Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are often spoken of as if they are immediate possible realities while reunion with the SSPX is usually seen as an impossibility. Even so, Allen's piece in the NCR is spot on when it says,

"The most likely scenario, therefore, is that when the dust settles, there will still be a traditionalist body on the outside looking in, presumably still led by validly ordained rebel bishops, but reduced in size and significance because some of its former members and leadership will be back in Rome's good graces."

Should the SSPX accept the personal prelature, the Traditionalist schism will still not be entirely healed. Many SSPX will refuse to reunite with Rome; my guess is that these remnants will ultimately become Sedevacantists or adopt some other bizarre heresy and drift off into oblivion, much like the Old Catholic Church.

For my part, I am of course presuming that the Doctrinal Preamble requires nothing of the SSPX beyond what is reasonable to ensure their loyalty to the Universal Church. I am presuming that the Doctrinal Preamble is going to be perceived as very generous, and by the liberals, much too generous. Assuming this is the case, if the SSPX does not agree to this arrangement - if they continue to nit-pick on minutae, or insist that Rome "convert" before they can even begin discussions, or if they continue to attack the person of the Holy Father, I will lose all respect for their organization. The fact that these negotiations are even happening was inconceivable prior to 2005. Things have come so tremendously far in seven brief years. The Holy See is sincerely reaching out and trying to bring them in, knowing that the reunion of the SSPX with the Church would mean tremendous blessing to all - the Church will have an infusion of some of the best educated and best formed clerics in the world, while the Society will obtain canonical legitimacy and all the graces that come from being in full union with the Successor of Peter.

I hope the SSPX realizes that this is a question of their very existence. If they reject this offer (or if a portion of them do), whomever remains outside the Church will dwindle in numbers, in support, and finally will spin off into formal heresy. That's what always happens. Those of the SSPX who do not take up this offer and return to Rome will cease to have any significance in the coming years.

I hope Bishop Fellay will do the right thing here and end this tragic schism. Pray for the reunion of the SSPX and the Holy See.