This is interesting from Catholic Family News as a development of the SSPX’s great “proof of concept” project, the building and consecration of their beautiful, huge new church in Kansas, The Immaculata.
“While regrettably the Church and the SSPX are not currently in full communion, the Archdiocese does not consider the SSPX to be schismatic.
While canonically one may fulfill one’s obligation to participate at Holy Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation by attending an SSPX Mass, the Masses are not licitly offered by priests possessing the grant of priestly faculties from the Archdiocese. Therefore, participation at SSPX Masses to satisfy one’s Sunday obligation is discouraged.
The Archdiocese does, in support of Pope Francis’ pastoral outlook as expressed in the 2017 letter, grant SSPX priests the faculty to witness marriages when the priests request it. The Archdiocese understands that at this time the SSPX priests in St. Marys request faculties to witness all marriages at The Immaculata.”
So, the Archdiocese of Kansas City (in Kansas) gives faculties/delegation to SSPX priests to witness marriages.
The Archdiocese of Kansas City does not hold the SSPX to be in schism. (After all they give the priests faculties for marriages.)
The Archdiocese of Kansas City say you fulfill your Sunday and Holy Day of Precept obligation by attending the Masses of the SSPX. (After all, why wouldn’t you? It’s a simple matter of can. 1248 §1.)
The only thing that needs more thought in the above is that idea of “full communion”. You are either in communion or not, no?
Loading ...
And don’t forget about the sacrament of penance. Every SSPX priest in the world has universal faculties (valid AND licit) for the traditional Latin form of absolution using the Roman Ritual, no matter what the local ordinary says. (Thank you, Pope Francis!) This irony is not lost on priests in, for instance, the Archdiocese of Washington and Diocese of Arlington — where diocesan priests here are prohibited from using the old form of absolution, but SSPX priests may do so 100% licitly by order of the current pope.
[The SSPX faculties are better than those of the ordinary diocesan priest.]
Some St. Thomas:
“Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Col. 2:18,19: “Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God.” Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.”
Ok, so the definition of schismatic is to “refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those who do.” But according to our competent authorities here, the SSPX is not schismatic. Therefore, they ‘do’ submit to the Sovereign Pontiff and hold communion with those who do.
So either, a) the competent authorities are wrong [which is absurd], or b) we need to seriously mull over what “submit to the Sovereign Pontiff” and “hold communion with those who do” really happens to mean. I am, myself, fairly certain that the “full” in “full communion” is one of those fun little 20th century phrases that’s being tossed around in order to avoid the question.
According to the catechism communion means 1 faith 2 sacraments and 3 governance. The SSPX is stellar on 1 and 2. But what about 3?
If a religious order wants to come in to a diocese or even change personnel they clear it with the bishop, don’t they? Does the SSPX do that?
By the above statement was issued by Abp Naumann, my bishop. I wish you all had a good bishop like him.
Pretty much the situation with the Greek Orthodox, etc.:
They have real priests and bishops, they have the Eucharist, they have valid marriages (they can be given ‘delegation’ for a Sacramental marriages), and in a pinch attending a Divine Liturgy suffices for Sunday obligation (not quite in the broad way as here, for sure, but similar).
Essentially: they operate at the command of real bishops who are not in full communion with Peter’s successor for one reason or another (disciplinary or otherwise).
I think Fr. Barbour at Catholic Answers had a reasonable view when he said “We’re already in full communion” but that “there’s an impediment to the practice of the communion we already share”.
In other words, the “classical” use of the word but acknowledging difficulties that arise in such a complicated situation.
Personally I appreciated reading the statement from the Archdiocese. Even if I don’t FULLY agree, I am gladdened to see the charity.
As time goes on I truly hope there’ll be less blame and more agreement. The Church can, in my humble opinion, only benefit.
I don’t think we can get away from the idea of “partial communion”. It clearly exists. The sacraments cannot exist without the Church. Yet we’ve known for centuries that a true Eucharist is celebrated in the Orthodox Churches. So there must be some sort of partial communion with the Catholic Church at play…
Connected to “full Communion” but not to the SSPX.
I wish the idea of “state of grace” is fostered a bit more. For many priests in my Country this idea is a bit of an old relic from the dark centuries. Everybody receives Holy Communion but hardly anyone goes to Confession. There is the rule that “you can receive Communion if you go to Confession within 1 week.” that they don’t follow anyway, but it just means: there is no need to go to Confession. The term “state of grace” does not even exist clearly in our languages here.
As a priest, it is not always easy to find another priest to go to Confession. They think it is very odd that one wants to receive this Sacrament often, as if you have to wait to kill someone to really need the Sacramental grace.
“The only thing that needs more thought in the above is that idea of “full communion”. You are either in communion or not, no?”
I suppose to be in state of grace is somehow connected to the idea of “full communion.”
I think many of us who feel liturgically malnourished due to the unavailability of the Traditional Mass in our area would welcome an SSPX chapel. Unfortunately, the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC) recently arrived in my town (Marathon, Florida) to offer disgruntled Catholics an alternative to the local Roman Catholic parish.
[These are some of the comments one of its promoters made: You have a right to practice your faith in other Catholic Churches. The PNCC has a 125 year history of not abusing its congregants. It’s your choice, but it gives you an option. Our outreach is to the Catholics who do not go to mass because of the constant scandals.]
The PNCC rejects the authority of the pope, has made the Liturgy of the Word a sacrament, has general confession and married priests. More details from Fr. John Harden here: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Protestantism/Protestantism_051.htm.
I have informed my pastor who in turn has informed the Archbishop of Miami. I look forward to his making a formal statement.
I am always curious as to exactly what piece of paper or utterance from a Pope it will take to put an end to the ridiculous accusations of “schism” directed at SSPX. I’m always struck by the irony in the statements of those like Cardinal Burke who condemn SSPX as schismatic when they themselves clearly deny the administrative authority of the Popes to rule on the issue as they have seen fit.
And now at this point, the SSPX has been irregularly regularized by Pope Francis.
‘Irregularly regularized’ is a great term, though a bit of a mouthful.
One of my frustrations has been the Church’s persistent inability to make a clear decision. And be accountable to it or for it.
In late 2001, I couldnt readily determine if the traditional Mass was legal or not. Same for displaying an American flag anywhere in a church’s nave. I finally determined that USCCB ideas lack authority, yet have legal standing nationwide when most bishops follow USCCB suggestions.
Now, we hear that Pope Francis privately commented about SSPX not in schism; an archdiocese says the same thing. ..Yet an archdiocese lacks authority …and Pope Francis wont make a formal declaration. We dont know why, yet he evidently lacks adequate confidence in the Society to formally declare them reconciled.
Even public statements are a mess. The Holy See says the SSPX lacks a Church ministry, yet won’t declare them separated; the archdiocese declares the SSPX Mass valid, yet discourages people attending.
So, six of one, half a dozen of the other. ..Directly contradicting each other.
I get it that we’re trying to bring everyone into the same tent, the better to offer salvation to all as much as we can. Yet the Church also needs to make Herself clear. All this equivocating and dithering creates more problems than it solves.
I have only been to one SSPX Mass in my 25 years of assisting at traditional Latin Masses. I started with a schismatic group who wanted me to understand they were schismatic. They reconciled with the local diocese 13 years later. In many ways my life has been better because of this, but I doubt they would have reconciled if they knew someone like PF would become Pope. It is clear to me that PF does not want me in his Church. Back in 1998 the local Bishop asked the Abbot of this group to come under his authority and when the offer was rejected he asked, “Don’t you trust me?” The reply was “I trust you but don’t trust the system.” Without Benedict I guess I would still be in this group, which no longer exists. Because of my personal experience I think the SSPX is a group to be admired. Someone has to be willing to resist bad church policies, though I don’t understand their concern with freedom of religion. My guess is that they are really concerned with whether Rome can be trusted. If Rome had any sense it would declare them licit and leave them alone. If Rome wants to maximize the number of souls saved, it would not push or declare people out of the Church. By the way, why do so many Catholics treat administrative rules (jus?) as if they should be on par with spiritual or divine laws (fas)?
[That is an excellent point.]
Honestly as a small pew sitter completely bored and detached from the local NO, which I now must attend as in the entire area of Oregon east of the Cascades there is no TLM, I think/believe/know/ that I am not the one who left the one holy, Catholic, apostolic church. All the legalistic arguments in the world mean nothing to me. I’m being abused by the people who run what is labeled the Catholic Church. If the SSPX will grace us here in this desert with their presence i and others will embrace them with open arms.
The latest news is that the SSPX will soon consecrate bishops–with the full approval of Pope Francis.
Enough! Our parish lost its priest and its TLM this Easter, not to mention 60 altar boys, many of whom had vocations, decreed by a bishop who lied about his reasons (as featured in Lifesite News). The sheep scattered but 200 of us showed up at the monthly SSPX Mass offered in a local hotel. Now the SSPX prior has graciously extended that to 3 Sundays a month. Trick question: Who is the Wolf? Who is the Shepherd?
I just received news that the story about Francis approval of new SSPX bishops is not true
Thank God for the SSPX. As someone who used to assist at a Diocesan TLM before it got axed I consider the SSPX a lifeboat that God, in His providence, created just for Catholics like me who have been tossed overboard by the Church under PF.
I have to drive about an hour to get to it, but that’s nothing.
I also think the Holy Spirit is restraining Church authorities from formally declaring SSPX schismatic – which I think they dearly want to do because they passionately hate us and want us stripped of all access to the sacraments.
We live in evil times.
How to view the SSPX?
1. As a canonically irregular religious institute of clerics, not incardinated to any regular religious superior, tolerated by the Holy See, with faculties given to it by various special grants of the Holy See.
2. As a sign to the Holy See that the traditional pre-Vatican-II Mass still has many adherents, many of whom (as comments here attest) feel their faith is endangered by the Novus Ordo Mass — and whom are driven to SSPX Masses because of Pope Francis’s “Traditionis Custodes” and other actions suppressing most TLM Masses within regular Catholic Church structures.
What would happen if a single bishop gave faculties within his diocese to the SSPX? Is this outside of their legal authority or just verboten?
The whole thing is confusing and it says more about the situation in the Church hierarchy than it does the SSPX. Pope Francis has said they are not in schism, but then referred to them as schismatic in other instances. Abp. Naumann says they don’t have the faculties to say Mass, but says attending Mass there is “discouraged” which he would probably say about attending an Orthodox liturgy or a Lutheran service.
It sounds as if the Archdiocese of Kansas “protests too much”. The SSPX has proven it’s viability thru its Seminary, Basilica and TLM devotion. The Archdiocese of Kansas appears to have developed a calculated response aimed at confusion amongst the faithful. The SSPX is an optimistic sign of life for the those who value the TLM. Grateful TLM can be celebrated in a dedicated church, instead of being banished underground.
This is a follow-up to my previous comment in which I mentioned the PNCC (see above).
I received the following formal statement from Most Rev Thomas Wenski, Archbishop of Miami:
The Polish National Catholic Church is a schismatic church, i e, not in communion with Rome. While generally it is conceded that their priests have valid orders, Roman Catholics should not receive communion there nor do they fulfill their Sunday Mass obligation.
By a special indult, members of the PNCC may receive communion in a Roman Catholic Church when they do not have access to their own pastors and parishes.
Their talking about abuse in the Church is a canard – abuse is not a Roman Catholic problem but a societal problem. Baptists, Jewish rabbis, Boy Scout leaders have had abusers among them as well. (We just make an attractive target for law suits) The PNCC would not be immune.
Most Rev Thomas Wenski
Archbishop of Miami