Today the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) released – along with the decree and explanatory note about the SSPX – the requirements for clerics (deacons and priests, according to the 1983 Code) seeking reconciliation with the Church. HERE Also, the DDF details the procedure for reconciliation of clerics and or lay people, putting lay people into a couple of categories. I have all four of these here, starting with the Formula of Adherence and Profession of Faith and then the two practical documents.
As part of that process, clerics must make the same profession of faith required of all clerics before ordination and of anyone before assuming legitimate ecclesiastical office. It is, basically, the Creed.
They must also sign a “Foruma Adhesionis”, a declaration of adherence to several points. Those points include fidelity to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, refraining from public declarations opposed to his person or to the Magisterium.
Also, they must accept the doctrine taught in Lumen Gentium 25 concerning the Church’s Magisterium and the adherence due to it, even when it isn’t an infallible teaching, and respecting the teachings which require assent. The cleric says he will have a positive interpretation regarding Vatican II and later liturgical and canonical reforms “quae aliquibus difficulter cum praecedentibus Magisterii declarationibus conciliari posse videntur … which can seem difficult to reconcile with previous declarations of the Magisterium.” In other words, don’t automatically stick to a negative interpretation.
Then, the cleric accepts the validity (it does not say superiority or uniqueness, etc.) of the Mass and Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, according to the rites found in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals issued by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. We can look around and see a lot of Masses which, to the objective viewer, don’t adhere to the rubrics and do not seem to intend what the Church intends. Bottom line: don’t say the Novus Ordo is invalid.
Other steps include, of course, finding a bishop willing to take responsibility for you, at least experimentally, for a year.
They are supposed to sign that. Here it is…
FORMULA OF ADHERENCE
Pledge my fidelity to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, the Supreme Shepherd of the Church, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his Primacy, and Head of the College of Bishops, refraining from any public declaration that would be contrary to his person or to his Magisterium (cf. canons 1373 and 1365 of the Code of Canon Law).
I accept the doctrine set forth in No. 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution *Lumen Gentium * of the Second Vatican Council regarding the Magisterium of the Church and the obligation to adhere to it. With regard to certain doctrines taught by the Second Vatican Council, or regarding subsequent reforms—whether of the Liturgy or of Canon Law—which some find difficult to reconcile with previous declarations of the Magisterium, I undertake the obligation to follow a positive approach to interpreting doctrine under the guidance of the Magisterium, so that no one may separate it from the rest of the Church’s sacred doctrinal heritage.
I also declare that I accept validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites found in the official editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals published by the Supreme Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II.
Finally, I promise to adhere to the common discipline of the Church and its laws, first and foremost those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II
I have signed all of the above with my own hand,
In loco
Date
PROFESSIO FIDEI
I , ___
in good faith, believe and profess all and every thing contained in the Symbol of Faith, namely:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and became man; He was also crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried; and He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who, together with the Father and the Son, is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets; and in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen. (i),/ i With firm faith I also believe all that is at is contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down, and which the Church, either by solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes as to be believed as divinely revealed.
I also firmly embrace and uphold all and every teaching regarding the doctrine of faith or morals definitively taught by the Church. Furthermore, with religious obedience of will and intellect, I adhere to the doctrines proclaimed by either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops when they exercise the authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim them definitively at that moment.
In loco
Date
Another document gives the procedure or praxis for reconciliation of SSPX priests. In a way, this is their way around establishing another “Ecclesia Dei” Commission.
DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONCILIATION OF PRIESTS COMING FROM THE PRIESTLY FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X
The procedure followed by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, effective July 1, 2026, stipulates that a priest who has decided to leave the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, and who is willing to accept the Second Vatican Council and the legitimacy of the novus ordo Missae, even while remaining attached to the usus antiquior, must:
1) Find an Ordinary (diocesan Bishop, Major Superior of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right, of clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, etc.) willing to receive him ad experimentum.
2) Write a letter in his own hand to the Holy Father, introducing himself and requesting the remission of the censures incurred either because he received ordination from an excommunicated or irregular Bishop, or because—having been validly and legitimately ordained—he subsequently joined the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.
3) Attach the certificate of priestly ordination.
4) Attach the *Professio fidei* and the *Formula adhaesionis*, dated and signed (cf. attachments a-c).
5) Have the three aforementioned documents sent to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith by the Ordinary, who shall indicate in the covering letter his willingness to receive the priest *ad experimentum* into his Diocese or Institute.
Upon receipt of the three documents from the Ordinary, the Dicastery shall draft the Rescript remitting the censures, which will be signed by the Prefect and the Secretary of the Doctrinal Section.
The Dicastery will send the said Rescript to the Ordinary, accompanied by a letter authorizing the acceptance of the requesting priest for a probationary period of at least one year and no more than three years, at the end of which his incardination may proceed.
It has recently been decided that, should the established probationary period prove unsuccessful, the Ordinary shall return the Rescript to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, enclosing a report detailing the reasons why incardination did not take place.
Another document outlines the reconciliation of lay people.
DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONCILIATION OF CERTAIN LAY PERSONS COMING FROM THE PRIESTLY FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS X
This procedure concerns the question of imputability, or the degree of subjective responsibility, of lay faithful who have formally joined or who frequent the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X and who seek to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church.
The imposition of a penalty on lay persons belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X cannot be presumed automatically but must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Since imputability requires full awareness and deliberate consent, examples of proven imputability may include:
1. Lay persons belonging to the Third Order of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X;
2. Lay persons who habitually participate in the celebrations of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X while formally sharing its doctrinal positions.
Conversely, the following are not to be considered imputable:
3. Lay persons who have frequented the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X solely for liturgical or spiritual reasons;
4. Lay persons who, despite being aware of the tensions with the Holy See, do not reject the Magisterium or the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
The procedure to be followed for lay persons belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X—upon whom a penalty has been imposed and who seek to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church—entails a formal act of full adherence to doctrine and obedience to the Catholic hierarchy, under the jurisdiction of the local Ordinary, who is the guarantor of the unity of the particular Church.
Therefore, a lay faithful person, as referred to in nos. 1-2, who has decided to leave the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X must:
• Submit the Professio fidei and the Formula adhaesionis, dated and signed, to the local Ordinary (cf. Attachments A-B [ABOVE]).
Once the documentation has been received, the local Ordinary will arrange to welcome the lay faithful in the manner and timeframe he deems most appropriate—for instance, by using the Rite of Admission to Full Communion with the Catholic Church for those already validly baptized, duly adapted.
As for the lay faithful referred to in nos. 3-4, it suffices for them to approach a priest in full communion, having resolved not to frequent the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X in the future.
As for that last bit, “approach a priest in full communion”… that pretty much means “go to church” or “go to Mass” or “go to confession”. Nothing outward is required. You don’t have to say anything about the SSPX or what you are doing or intend.
“obligationem assumo sequendi lineam positivam ad doctrinam interpretandam sub ductu Magisterii
ne quis eam a reliquo sacro doctrinae Ecclesiae patrimonio disiungat.”
Can we make everybody sign this statement?
Hi Father,
If a Layman attends an SSPX chapel because that is his only option for a TLM and he’s not going because of any state of rebellion or intent to be in schism, what penalties if any does he now incur? Thank you.
Father,
Your final comment, “as for that last bit” didn’t mention the stipulation to not attend SSPX masses in the future
“I also firmly embrace and uphold all and every teaching regarding the doctrine of faith or morals definitively taught by the Church.”
How many bishops and priests “in full communion” (including priests and prelates in the Holy See) could honestly swear to this?
If Rome insisted that EVERY cleric swear to this and disciplined those who refused to swear or else reneged on their vow, the problem of the SSPX would go away faster than you can say Dominus Vobiscum.
I am sorry I should have added “if the Layman is NOT resolved to no longer frequent the sspx chapel” since it is his only recourse for a TLM.
A short funny video of the late, great Michael Davies on Canon 844. I have ran this past an old Holy Ghost father who does not support the SSPX. He says this is valid.
I’m an ordinary retired blue collar who has been supporting the SSPX for decades as far as I’m concerned this gets us all off the hook.
https://youtube.com/shorts/aHglDKN6ld8?is=sKL3MmZ5XqBO6kZj
Per Bishop Athanasius Schneider, there is no schism.
https://mukwonago.wi.sspx.org/en/news/declaration-bishop-athanasius-schneider-sspx-consecrations-59783
Does “regarding subsequent reforms” include Amoris laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, or the revision of the CCC on capital punishment? If it does, I don’t know I could sign that in good faith as a layman.
Couple things I am unclear on:
1. If laity occasionally attend then they don’t incur excommunocation so why can’t they attend any more?
2. If 1988 excommunications extended to formally adhering laity, are they still excommunicated as BXVI only lifted decrees against named bishops.
3. If Holy See retroactively recognises appointments of Chinese Patriotic bishops, how does it also undo their latentae sententiae excommunications which they presumably likewise incurred?
This whole “mess” should come as no surprise to all but a few. Our current pontiff is a nicer version of his predecessor, but Leo XIV is Francis I 2.0.
I wish it were otherwise, but his lack of correction of T.C. after the revelation of the defects in the report that prompted it shows his lack of interest in “walking together” with the traditionally-minded.
Pray for the excommunicated of the SSPX both ordained and lay—they face a difficult decision.
Pray for the Church that its bishops are more accommodating to the traditionally-minded.
The “FORMULA OF ADHERENCE” is basically the opening clauses from the 1988 protocol between Abp. Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger.
The “remaining attached to the usus antiquior” would seem difficult unless there is going to follow a loosening of Traditiones Custodes to accommodate them. If not abrogated entirely at the very least Bishops should again receive the ability to create Canon 518 personal parishes and societies of Apostolic Life of diocesan right, if not the ability to allow Masses in their parishes and cathedrals at their own discretion, which would be much more collegial as well as pastoral.
TheCavalierHatherly – “positivam” in that instance would still be taken as a contranym adjective.
To me, it says if you attend an SSPX chapel solely because it’s the only available TLM, you are still in schism. [That’s not what it says or means.] You have to approach a priest in the regular hierarchy and resolve not to attend an SSPX mass again. [“Approach” doesn’t mean “walk up to”.]
I don’t see any way in these documents to attend SSPX services and be in good standing with Rome. [We will get it straightened out.]
Thank you for all this detail!
Curious to think that the FSSPX clergy and all “imputable” laity have been transmewed (to revive an old word) into the category of “multi, qui sacram Scripturam ut normam credendi et vivendi in honore habent sincerumque zelum religiosum ostendunt, amanter credunt in Deum Patrem omnipotentem et in Christum, Filium Dei Salvatorem, baptismo signantur, quo Christo coniunguntur, imo et alia sacramenta in propriis Ecclesiis vel communitatibus ecclesiasticis agnoscunt et recipiunt. Plures inter illos et episcopatu gaudent, Sacram Eucharistiam celebrant necnon pietatem erga Deiparam Virginem fovent. Accedit orationum aliorumque beneficiorum spiritualium communio; imo vera quaedam in Spiritu Sancto coniunctio, quippe qui donis et gratiis etiam in illis sua virtute sanctificante operatur, et quosdam illorum usque ad sanguinis effusionem roboravit.” (‘Lumen gentium’, 15)
@excalibur
“Per Bishop Athanasius Schneider, there is no schism.
https://mukwonago.wi.sspx.org/en/news/declaration-bishop-athanasius-schneider-sspx-consecrations-59783”
As of June 22, the date of this article, there was no schism.
Now, as of July 1, there is.
@ Ceile De
I will take a shot at answering your 3 questions
1 Laity attending for liturgical or spiritual reasons is not a sign of formal adherence to the schism and does not create the assumption of excommunication _latae sententiae_
But as of this morning’s decree (July 2) all sacraments administered by the priests of the SSPX are illicitly administered.
In addition, any absolution given or marriage witnessed are invalid.
2 Any formally adhering laity whose excommunication from 1988 has never been lifted are still excommunicated, but since those excommunications were never declared, they could have been, and probably were, lifted quietly without public fanfare.
3 The matter of the scandalous concordat between the Holy See and the CCP has not been made public, so no answer can be reliably given to this question.
Father, I have a Quaeritur about one aspect of this that’s been on my mind for some time. What is “incardination”, why does it limit you to one diocese forever, and how is it being used to banish cancelled priests so in effect they cannot be priests anywhere? It appears that AN SSPX PRIEST now gets to “choose his own diocese” where the Bishop will take him for a probationary period. Could YOU AND OTHER CANCELLED BUT NOT EXCOMMUNICATED OR SCHISMATIC PRIESTS use this to do the same thing: go to a diocese where the Bishop is friendly to the TLM, and get in as a probationer? If not, why are you punished even more severely than the excommunicated and schismatic SSPX priests?
[Incardination is the juridical bond by which a Catholic cleric belongs to a particular Church, personal prelature, institute, or other competent ecclesiastical entity. Ordination normally brings incardination into a diocese or institute. By mutual agreement (mostly) a cleric can excardinate from one diocese (etc.) and incardinate in another. Clerics who are not incardinated are an anomaly. The way you put it, the document suggests that an SSPX can “choose his own diocese”. HA! The document says: “1) Find an Ordinary (diocesan Bishop, Major Superior of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right, of clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, etc.) willing to receive him ad experimentum.” Yeah… “find an ordinary WILLING TO RECEIVE”. And we all know that there are LOTS of bishops willing to take men who want to celebrate the TLM, whose formation was from the SSPX. RIGHT? There are all sorts of bishops now who are friendly to the TLM, no? And if they are, is Rome breathing down their necks and micromanaging? If there were a bishop who took in several SSPX priests, I suspect that the Rome’s version of the Eye of Roman Sauron would zero in on him faster than you can say “Strickland”. In any event, we are now back to a situation similar to 1988. Only now we have the internet and people have had Summorum Pontificum, etc. It’s alike, but unlike as well.]
How many others will need to jump through such hoops? Will anyone who has read (laughably in over his head) víctor manuel fernández’s soft porn book have to do so? Has fernandez himself done so? Will anyone who attended james martin’s blessing facades? (And this is a man who likely has had much more access to Francis and Leo than anyone in the SSPX could have hoped for). Will anyone who had to suffer through bizarre sermons for decades by the obviously gay (let’s please allowed to be honest for a moment) priests surrounding nighty night baby? Will any of the radical left wing zealots who have been elevated by francis, most of which were students of Uncle teddy, who themselves, or allowed other to molest a horrifying amount of little boys, and paid so many billions in settlements that they needed to take money from the atheist and barbaric Chinese government….in exchange for allowing THEM to appoint the very Bishop they are now excommunicating Catholic men for? I dont think so. It is beyond exhausting and upsetting. I think its past time for Men (myself included) to open our bloody eyes, get our a**** off our couches, stop worrying about when the Sunday Football game starts, grab our Rosaries and get involved our Churches, our Parish councils, and start dictating where our $ is going to. If we continue to allow this to mostly the jobs of women and gay men, then we are going to continue to get exactly what we deserve. I dont know if the SSPX is ‘right’ but I dont blame or judge them for their action. At one point, St. Paul was so fed up he felt it was necessary to rebuke St. Peter. And may God forgive me, but I can’t shake the fact that a voluntary action of on the part of Joseph Ratzinger led to all of this, unwittingly or not. For God’s sake if we was not up to the job, he never should have accepted that Cross.
This process is highly offensive. The pope needs prayers.
Sadly, what this whole debacle is going to achieve in the long run is to make excommunication lose credibility in the eyes of many. They will see it as merely some kind of political mechanism wielded with great prejudice by progressive powers from within the Vatican and ignore any potential spiritual ramifications tied to it.
There are thousands upon thousands of people who are not going to stop going to the SSPX. And they’re good Catholics with large families. And, in fact, I predict the SSPX will continue to grow, especially since there doesn’t seem to be any serious desire to reverse T.C. But, even if there was, I think the SSPX would still continue to grow, especially in countries where they’re the only option for the TLM. And there are still going to be baptisms (lots of those) and marriages and confessions, no matter what Tucho or Pope Leo say. And the average person in the pews is not going to take these ludicrous “adherence” instructions seriously.
Those outside the Church already see it as absurd that, of all the crazy things going on in the world the Pope is willing to play favorites with Communist China but tries to drop the mother of all hammers on actual faithful Catholics.
So, in the long run, it’s going to make people think excommunication has little to no weight.
Sadly, the excuse used for so long as in why John Paul II or Benedict could not wield their power too recklessly, because it would undermine their authority when the Liberals just ignored it is going to come to pass with this truly short sighted reaction to the SSPX. This hand was very, very poorly played.
But, maybe that’s Tucho’s plan all along. As insurance in case an actually serious-punishing-actual schismatics pope ever sits in Peter’s Chair again.
Regardless, it’s not a good thing for the Church.
I don’t know if it would have made a difference but it’s tragic that Leo XIV refused to meet with the SSPX leaders at any time after his elevation to the papacy, despites months of requests. I know Leo was very busy hosting Robert DeNiro, Cardinal Mahony, Fr James Martin, Al Pacino, Spike Lee, David Axelrod, Governor Pritzker, Cate Blanchett, etc. but still…
@Ceile De
If the argument is that SSPX is just doing what the CCP is also doing, I don’t think this works in any way as a defense.
More “generous” than I expected.
Dear Fr Kelly
Thanks for your explanations – lack of transparency is a real issue here.
Dear Fr Reader
Maybe not the most helpful suggestion but perhaps the SSPX would have been wiser to have the episcopal consecrations performed by Patriotic Church bishops – it seems those are retroactively automatically rubber stamped and the problem would have been avoided.
This is rather more than I expected. Putting the bishops in front of a firing squad was presumed. If you are the pope and you don’t shoot the guys so blatantly and unashamedly raising the finger at you, you can’t expect anyone to take you seriously. Popes can be many things, but they cannot afford to be weak. The breadth of these declarations is far wider than I expected. Tactically, taking out the lower commissioned officers, the clerics, makes sense, but from an institution that so rarely excommunicates anyone anymore, going beyond the essential is surprising. To win the day the Church must do 2 things: 1) make the TLM more easily available to those who want it and 2) stop taking the SSPX seriously. There has been interminable dialogue with Lefebvre, Fellay and now Pagliarani for decades. Paul, John Paul, Benedict, and even Francis all saw their efforts produce no fruit. Make clear that they have persisted in a course that demonstrates, their protestations to the contrary, that they are now a different entity from us. We respect whatever good they do to proclaim the gospel of Christ, but in no practical way should they be seen to speak for us. We show them the respect we show to the Third Methodist Church of Oslo and we expend only the same energy in dialogue with SSPX as we do with that church. May God have mercy on us all if He sees fit to litigate any of this come Judgement.
@Ben
“ne quis eam a reliquo sacro doctrinae Ecclesiae patrimonio disiungat” seems to me to be a perfectly good qualifier for the adjective.
Anyways, ” If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”
In 1998 I left the Episcopal Church primarily over its drift toward treating loose sexual habits as just one of those things. I saw the source of this in their revision of their liturgy which prior to the 1970’s emphasized personal piety. Since I knew the NO Catholic liturgy was very similar to the New Prayer book liturgy, I sought out a Latin Mass. Eventually I emailed Malachi Martin who put me in touch with a traditional group near me, that is an hour and a half away.
Thirteen years later, after the founder died the group reconciled with the local diocese under an agreement approved by Rome. It included the promise of a continuing VO Mass and a process to the remaining 5 priests to have their ordinations approved by Rome so that they could offer Mass legitimately. Two priests agreed to follow the procedure, the others left. The two who remained never heard a thing a from Rome. They had agreed not to offer Mass until Rome regularized them. At the time of the “reconciliation” I told the prior of the monastery that he should have said they would reconcile on the date his orders were regularized because I did not believe Rome would keep its word.
Recently I heard from a friend who has kept in touch with him. Apparently he told her he wished he had done that.
It will be interesting to me to see if Rome will accept any of the SSPX priests, if any decide to leave.
I also wonder if Rome’s plan takes into account the fact that many people who worship at SSPX chapels converted to Catholicism and have never been to a NO Mass. This is a mistake my diocese made, so when I finally spoke to the priest offering the TLM, he had to go talk to the Bishop or canon lawyer to find out what to do. Other converts just began receiving the sacrament without talking to the priest.
Given the animus many have toward the SSPX because quite a few SSPXers believe the NO Mass is bad for the soul, I want to point out that that in fact has been my personal experience. Since we are supposed to meet people where they are, why not do that with SSPXers?
The DDF is imposing a frog march. The SSPX will wait it out, hoping for better days under a future pope — or DDF head.
I can’t even pretend to understand all the facets of this dispute, but there are other tragedies for us little people:
– Those faithful, loyal souls who want to see the TLM prosper are more likely to be viewed locally as potential schismatics.
– Anyone curious about the TLM is more likely to be scared off.
– With SSPX confessions no longer valid, that’s all the fewer opportunities for people to receive the sacrament. Heaven knows the times for Confession at most diocesan churches are often quite stingy.
For a matter of such gravity I think I need to see the original Latin document before I can express an opinion.
Can the Holy See render sacraments ministered by a validly ordained priest invalid? Illicit I can understand, but invalid?
Short answer: The Church gets to decide how sacraments are celebrated. In the case of both marriage and the sacrament of penance, a faculty or permission is required from competent authority (like a diocesan bishop) for validity because there is a juridical act involved. Without that faculty, a priest cannot absolve validly except in cases of danger of death. Similarly, for a marriage to be valid it has to be witnessed by someone with that faculty, which he has either by his office (pastor of a parish) or by delegation.
How can they accept the doctrines of V2 if it was a pastoral council that proposed no doctrines?
“1. What is wrong with the Second Vatican Council?
The Second Vatican Council taught doctrines which had been already condemned by the Church, and enacted disciplines which are contrary to the Church’s teaching and constant practice. ”
“4. What is wrong with the liturgy which has emanated from Vatican II?
The New Mass of Paul VI, which has replaced the traditional Catholic Mass, contains elements borrowed from Protestant worship. It is an innovative rite in which the Catholic doctrine on the nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as it was taught by the Council of Trent has been systematically expunged and replaced by false doctrines concerning the Mass, the Real Presence, and the priesthood. “
With respect to marriage, is Dr. Edward Peters’ very interesting 18 March 2021 post, “It’s hard to think clearly about marriage if folks don’t speak clearly about marriage”, at his canonlawblog relevant here?
E.g., does excommunication of clergy and “imputable” laity put FSSPX weddings in the category of “a civil marriage between non-Catholic Christians, as long as it is a marriage under natural law, is a sacramental marriage—no matter who, however high up, implies otherwise”?
Venerator Sti Lot,
I think your reasoning misses that excommunication doesn’t make one a non-Catholic in terms of the obligations one has. And one of those obligations would be to marry according to the proper form. Not following proper form might affect validity.
Which shows that all of this is rather messy, and no doubt there are ‘ifs and buts’ to my argument too. It would probably be wiser to have left the laity out of this mess altogether.
As for the conditions for reconcilliation, it’s interesting to see that – despite the wording being a bit vague at times, quelle surprise – it does boil down to the essence of the confluct: who gets to decide what is Catholic? The Pope, or can each group do that for themselves? Because that is the fallacy the SSPX is suffering from: if one says that VII was unwise, dangerous, vague, a rupture etc, that is one thing. But to say that it was an Error, with capital E, meaning that is has to be repudiated, is another – and that’s the direction things are going. It is saying that whomever disagrees with that position is no longer Catholic in the full sense of the word. Which is a judgement that lies, even if poorly executed, with the Pope and no-one else.
Reading the various statements of the past few months makes me rather less optimistic this issue can be solved (ever). Logically speaking, I can see that in the SSPX the need is perceived to keep beating about the bush about ‘error’ if they honestly believe salvation of the ones who they beat about is at stake. (If it’s not that, it would be obtuseness).
But the premises of that argument are faulty (both that they can make that judgement, or that salvation would be on that knife’s edge) in my opinion, but very deeply rooted, or so it seems.
@jhogan
I’m praying for that!
Just one comment on the Francis 2.0 thing: Francis seemed to like the SSPX much more than he liked any of the traditionalist institutes in full communion. In fact, he granted the SSPX privileges, and helped them out both as archbishop of BSAS and as pontiff. Which is something worth pondering about much more than people usually do. I’m not so sure that he would have punished the fraternity as harshly; and I’m also not so sure that wasn’t one of the reasons why the fraternity seems to have waited his death out for new consecrations.
It is my opinion that the Pope’s actions in this case show weakness rather than strength. It is not a strong reaction, rather a severe one. But often when one reacts in a severe manner, it indicates he does not know what to do, or if he does he does not have the inner strength to do it. (For example, a father beating his daughter for being promiscuous. He does not know what to do or realizes in some sense his own behavior contributed to the problem.)
Benedict XVI knew the truely strong response is love and mercy and the result was a severe backlash against him among the Vatican insiders, hence his statement about the need to have someone to hate.
Hence I believe in this case the reaction of the Pope that would have indicated strength would be love and mercy. Strength because it would have been doing the right thing when everyone is telling him a severe reaction will show strength. One can say all he wants about excommunication being medicinal, but in this case it clearly is not medicinal, it is clearly an attempt to be punitive because (1) history tells us it won’t work and (2) everyone can see that the real problem with the SSPX is that they are willing to say openly what everybody knows: the Vatican II reforms have not worked for the betterment of souls, and the bureaucrats in Rome cannot allow that.
@Phil_NL2 – the idea that the Pope, of himself, gets to decide what “is Catholic” IS a big part of the problem. Anyone who doubted that this was a problem before Jorge Bergoglio has no excuse to recognize this as a problem after the wreckage that was the papacy of Francis. If the Catholic Faith is not more than the whim of the current pope, there is no Catholic Faith.
I’d go so far as to add that it’s not up to a single, solitary Ecumenical Council (or whatever is done in it’s name) to determine what “is Catholic.” The weight of history must come into bear, or there is no such thing as Sacred Tradition, there is no gravity to any Magisterial teachings, and at that point nothing and everything “is Catholic” at the same time.
The SSPX are simply clinging to what was handed down, to them, prior to all the innovations introduced from the 1960s and beyond. It’s the entire concept of “The Deposit of Faith” as something received, protected, and passed on. That so many today think the Pope gets to determine what is or is not “The Deposit of Faith” is to reduce the Catholic Faith into papalism. The only changes the pope can ever make with regard to the Deposit of Faith are specific clarifications to elements of it which come into question because of misunderstandings or heresy or the organic development of the understanding of doctrine occurring over time and not by committee. He has no power to alter, change, or introduce novelties into the Deposit of Faith. And if he tries to do this, those efforts are without merit or substance and cannot be binding on the faithful as what must be believed in order to “be Catholic.”
I think the only solution to this mess will take well more than a hundred years, when nobody gives a care about “Vatican II” and doesn’t pretend it’s the source and summit of the Catholic Faith, the Novus Ordo liturgy has devolved into a thousand unrecognizable variations all rich with “inculturation,” the financial treasury of the Church will have been completely squandered by the corrupt leadership of the Church, most of the great cathedrals will have been turned into mosques or burned to the ground, and what pews are even left sit almost entirely empty. The cardinals and bishops have set themselves up as independent in reality while Jesuitically pretending fealty to the Chair of Peter. Finally, a weak and despondent pope casts his arms abroad in agony and loss, and the SSPX will be there, by this time millions strong, and they will come to his aid, bringing great relief to the Church, and the great work of trying to build up the Kingdom of God on Earth (rather than trying to destroy it) will begin again amongst the rubble left behind by the Spirit of Vatican II. At some point, there will be a council that will revisit Vatican II and, while not condemning it, the new council will issue clear and rigid clarifications for how the questionable teachings springing from it must be understood, otherwise Anathema Sit. There will probably be some clarifications to Vatican I, too.
I know – it’s just a silly fantasy, and I’m not pretending there wouldn’t be many pitfalls, setbacks, and conflicts even in my dream scenario. But it’s the only solution I can imagine, and even in the best case scenario I can’t fathom that this will be resolved in any of our life times. We will live under this great cloud of confusion and doubt for generations, praying and hoping that God, in His Mercy, will be patient with us as we each try to find our way when all the clear roads have been blown to bits.
Phil_NL2,
Thanks for your reply! I heartily agree that “It would probably be wiser to have left the laity out of this mess altogether.”
My reasoning/querying includes the attempt to see how (apparently officially proclaimed) new ‘schismatics’ differ from all the old ‘schismatics’ (and variously ‘heretics’) regarded so warmly in Lumen gentium 15 and with respect to various details of canon law about the reception of sacraments which I have read in the past but do not have at my fingertips and have not labored to rediscover before responding. Each and every validly Baptized ‘schismatic’ and ‘heretic’ is in some sense equally to be seen in terms of the obligations one has with respect to being Catholic, yet are with distinctions treated as they are in Lumen gentium 15, canon law, and, it would seem in Dr. Peters’ observation, largely without distinction with respect to valid sacramental marriages – as (perhaps), for example, with respect to Baptism by the Congregation of the Holy Office on 18 December 1871.
Venerator Sti Lot,
Yeah, it does make one wonder. But I think – though I can claim no special expertise other than having been around for a bit – that one would have to distinguish between the schismatics and heretics that have been so their whole lives, maybe for many generations even, and those who were at one points Catholics-in-good-standing. There may be no difference in terms of the obligation, morally speaking, for either category to become Catholics-in-good-standing again. But there may be a difference in obligations due to the fact that the member of the first category never were Catholic, and therefore clearly aren’t Catholics now, so not (ever) subject to ‘pesky requirements’ like marrying according to proper form. This while the second category doesn’t necessarily cease to be Catholic, hence subject to those more practical obligations, merely by being excommunicated. After all, excommunication is still a medicinal penalty by design, the point is to get back to what I’ll call ‘Catholic-in-good-standing’ status. From that point of view, it would be illogical to say that by applying that penalty, all other requirements are waved, “do what you like”, so that when reconciled, you may still find yourself in a bigger mess because you were in the interim allowed more freedom.
I don’t think that’s how it works, so I do think a distinction is in order. But for where it lies exactly, and proper terminology, someone better schooled in canonical matters would be needed, I admit.
@WVC
I hope our gracious host allows me a longish reply, cause it seems this is an example of ‘it seems Rome and the SSPX speak two different languages these days’. (Though I mean this by analogy, I wouldn’t pretend or presume to equate to ‘Rome’ nor do I know if you would care much for the other role).
As a prime example, there is a difference between how we use the phrase ‘what is catholic’, or so it seems. Your answer reads as you take it to mean ‘What is the content of the Catholic deposit of Faith’, yet I intended it as ‘What is not within (or compatible) with the Catholic deposit of Faith’. So rather than ‘what’s in’ my analysis takes the angle of ‘what’s out?’ That subtle difference is relevant, as I see as a big part of the problem that the SSPX tends to gravitate towards a logic where anything that is not actively within the deposit of Faith as traditionally understood, is automatically outside it, so error (maybe better ‘Error’), hence an attack on that deposit. That’s pretty black and white. In such a context, the two readings of the phrase do not really differ.
But this is not the only approach possible, as I’d say that our faith is not one that is completely comprehensible by the human mind, nor that it can precisely demarcate its boundaries. God has revealed much, but not so much that genuine difference of opinion about what is required of us isn’t possible.
And that’s where the papacy comes in. Faithful Catholics can probably safeguard the deposit of faith for many generations without a hierarchy by focussing on what was handed down, and preserve it. I respect that the SSPX is trying to do that. Yet what cannot be done with a hierarchy, without a pope, is saying ‘but this, this is so bad it falls outside the deposit of faith’. Because if any group, no matter how faithful, would have that right, soon you would have different groups consigning different ideas or practices to the realm outside ‘what is Catholic’. The faith would scatter, even more than it has already. In order to preserve the faith, there can be only one arbiter of that issue, what is truely out of bounds, on this earth. For better or worse – and that varies with the times – that is the Pope.
So I would reject that this is papalism. In fact, making the contents of the deposit of faith dependent on the whim of a pope would indeed be a bad idea, I’m with you on that. I’d think we can fairly say that for the last millennium and then some, bad popes – for widely varying reasons – were more the rule rather than the exception. So adding new things to the deposit of faith is risky business, should a pope or council attempt that; in theory it would only be a clarification of what already existed. (I phrase rather cautiously, as for example IVF or gene editing are so far away from the experiences of not only biblical times, but also the next 19 centuries that I feel one cannot phrase this too strictly).
But what at stake here is actually, as I read the Vatican’s position, the ability to say what is outside the deposit of faith. And there one cannot go against the Holy Father, not in full measure. Hence, one may say that V2 was unwise, dangerous, vague, a rupture etc. But saying it was outside the deposit of faith, is one bridge too far. Likewise, one may consider the NO inferior, maybe even ‘bad for the soul’ of the person making the statement (plenty of examples where one could catch a severe allergy to NO antics for life, granted), but absolutely not as a general statement, applicable to everyone. And while the SSPX has been mostly careful not to cross that line too explicitly, they skirt it continously, and one cannot fault the Vatican for catching the sentiment. The continuous pounding on regarding the ‘error’ and ‘crisis’ in the Church does have a strong smell of we’re-catholic-and-you-really-aren’t. I therefore do consider the conditions for reconcilliation to be logical and appropriate – even if, alas par for the course, poorly worded at times. Also meaningful is that on all other fronts, the conditions are actually pretty minimal. It’s an implict recognition that, apart from their rejection of many papal or council documents, what they do believe is indeed with the deposit of the faith – that’s not where the quarrel is, hence my conclusion in the post above.
Now allow me to juxtapose another scenario next to yours. In some senses, it’s not too different, in that I see that the happy-clappy crowd will vanish from the pews. They by and large already have in many places. The clergy attached to its excesses (as they rarely seem to care that much about theology, V2-inspired or otherwise) will follow within a few decades. But there will not be a much depleted Church, begging the SSPX to the rescue with many millions of adherents. There are enough serious catholics, even if wholly formed in the NO, that the Church will endure. The issue is not which percentage of the church is in crisis, the issue is how many will persist despite the crisis around them. We’re doing by the 10s, many hunderds of millions. At various stages, adherents of the SSPX will see that while the going is though, the society has taken it too far. Quietly, people will avail them of the other traditional options, in full communion. (I would not be surprised that if people were offered say an SSPX parish and an FSSP parish at equal availability, the cross-over would be very significant – and not in the SSPX direction. V2 will not only fade in the memory of the wider Chruch, as you predict, but also within the SSPX, even though at a slower rate as the importance attached to it is bigger and the trauma fresher). There will be setback, some popes will be more welcoming than others. But my dream is that at some point, the Church will clean up much of its act, and part the society will say ‘in conscience, we have to get back’. And that the pope of that time will be generous and steadfast, and provide a warm welcome as befits a father. Part of the society will, realistically, harden and cling to vocally find ‘Error’, no solution, short of a miracle, will be complete now. Yet I pray that part will be minute.
And yes, maybe it would need a century. Let’s hope not.
@Phil_NL2
Thanks for the response. I think I understand your nuance, but I don’t really thing it amounts to much so far as I can see. When folks point to JPII kissing the Quran at the Assisi prayer meeting and say, “See, this enactment of the ‘message’ preached in Nostra Aetate is clearly in conflict with the consistent Church teaching prior to the 1960s,” I don’t feel like that’s an excommunicable or schismatic labeling offense. Pope Francis, in Amoris laetitia, clearly developed a line of thought in direct contradiction to the moral teaching of the Church prior to the 1960s. It was so bad 4 Cardinals even submitted an official dubia. Of course, it was never answered. And you can point to several dozen other examples of obvious contradictions being done in the name of the Church by the leaders of the Church, from blatantly contradictory teaching like the CCC on the Death Penalty to blatantly contradictory actions, like allows a gay pride Mass in St. Peter’s or the celebration of Pachamama in the Vatican gardens.
I’d even go so far as to say that I suspect a pope has no power whatsoever to suppress the Vetus Ordo, any more than he has the power to edit the Gospel of John. I hope some future pope and council dogmatically define that as a reality. But I know it won’t be in mine or my kids’ lifetimes.
Claiming we can’t know if these Vatican II inspired novelties are in contradiction or not a part of the Deposit of the Faith without the pope’s approval seems like the same brand of papalism, only from the other angle. Believing there’s something wrong with Nostra Aetate because it inspired this type of behavior and was referenced as the support for this type of behavior is logical and reasonable, and believe that Nostra Aetate must be perfect because it was part of an Ecumenical Council seems like superstition. Councils have absolutely been corrected, adjusted, or sometimes revoked in Church History.
I grant, I’m not one that thinks I can authoritatively label a pope a heretic and declare the seat vacant, and I do think such a position would be schismatic, but at the same time I have the capacity to recognize when what is being done or said is wrong and to reject such nonsense out of hand and ignore any orders in line with the aforesaid nonsense. If a TLM parishioner were on his deathbed and asked for Extreme Unction in the traditional form, and the pope and the bishop ordered that priest to provide the NO version instead, that priest would be absolutely correct to ignore that order and do the right thing. That he would be severely punished by petty overlords after the fact doesn’t make the priest the one “in the wrong.”
While I have no ties with the SSPX, I recognize that this is, more or less, their position, and I respect it.
So far as you vision of the future goes, I’m all for it. I’m simply not nearly as optimistic as you. I think you’re underestimating the hatred of those who are in power have for the Church and for good Catholics. They would literally rather see churches turned into mosques or burned down than allow faithful Catholics to have the Latin Mass inside them (and they’ll gladly take anti-Catholic government money to help keep things afloat while they support no-borders immigration and climate change and you name it). And I think you underestimate the amount of apathy and cowardice in the ranks of most bishops. They’ve proven, after COVID and after TC, that “go along to get long” is the motto. They’re not supposed to be just middle-managers for Rome but, by and large, they have become de facto middle-managers for Rome.
Are there good NO Catholics out there in the pews? Certainly. But there are also many who are there because it’s a thing to do, and that’s the extent of it. And their own ignorance of the Faith sometimes astounds me (my kids were invited to an Easter Party, complete with Easter Bunny, by some Catholic neighbors – only the party was scheduled for Palm Sunday – they literally had no concept of what Lent is). And I don’t blame those Catholics, I blame the priests and bishops who have failed to teach them. Will those NO Catholics fight for the Church when they don’t even really have any concept what the Church even is?
For those NO Catholics who are more serious, when the liturgical abuses become enshrined in the NO as “inculturation” and they find themselves sick to the soul at their local parish, will they wind up seeking the TLM, and will the only place offering it be the SSPX? That’s my sneaking suspicion.
The big “if” is the Ecclesia Dei communities. While I love them and support them, they operate purely at the will of the current pope and bishops. As those in the Vatican keep proving, they don’t actually care about the law anymore. They do anything they want to. And so it doesn’t matter what a charter says or what charism an order might have. If the order comes down that all FSSP priests must offer one NO Mass every Sunday in support of their local bishop, there won’t be any recourse. If they’re told that all baptisms must be NO, regardless. They’ll have no recourse. Again, I’m just not as optimistic as you on how long those in the Vatican who hate them will allow them to continue. I think that shoe was definitely on the way to dropping before Francis died. That Leo has put a pause on it does not really mean much, so far as I can tell. Leo’s made it fairly clear that he believes his job is to carry on the work of Francis, albeit in a more polite and orderly fashion. And he’s probably going to be a pope for a long time, and unless he starts consistently naming good Catholics as cardinals, there’s no reason to think the next pope (or the next next pope) will be any better than him, and plenty of reasons to think the successor(s) will be much worse.
Of the two scenarios, I’d prefer yours (although I’d still rather have an SSPX reconciliation). I just think it unlikely. I’m afraid the leaders in Rome have moved the Church squarely into Flannery O’Connor territory. God’s Grace will come to help us, but it will be a very painful event.
@Phil_NL2
Permit me to be a brief interloper.
In protestantism, there is a conflict between the regulative principle of worship (only what is commanded by scripture is allowed) and the normative principle of worship (whatever is explicitly prohibited in scripture is not allowed). Seems to me that your “what is catholic” and “what is not catholic” is operating within that paradigm. I don’t find the Protestant arguments in their liturgy wars compelling.
For the SSPX, they are operating WITH a pope. They are not sedevacantist. To my understanding, they are operating from two frameworks — the hypothetical “what if we have a heretical/bad pope?” of the doctors of the Church (Bellerman, Newman, etc.), assuming that we do and then following that well-grounded advice. A Thomistic and less autocratic reading of Vatican I, with some models of Eastern Church governance thrown implicitly in as correctives.
—>I would not be surprised that if people were offered say an SSPX parish and an FSSP parish at equal availability <—
That is the rub, isn't it? IF. IF. IF. Well in that case there wouldn't be an emergency in the Church and the SSPX hould be fine with that. I don't see that happening any time soon. Even though there are trendlines in the laity that grow the FSSP and ICKSP, the episcopal trendline is to constrict them, and diocesean TLM — has been that way for 13 years and Leo hasn't reversed that.
Pope Leo in his words has indicated that what he is interested in is giving us a Synodal Church. Those bishops who desire synodality will not be friendly to the Deposit of Faith because the Deposit of Faith rejects synodality categorically.
Phil_NL2,
Thanks for your reply to my reply!
I have not grown in canonical expertise in the last couple hours, but note with interest the 6 July article on the FSSPX News site by Abbé Frédéric Weil in French and English versions, “The Good and the Bad Schismatics”, with its various detailed canonical attention.
With respect to Holy Matrimony, I heard the other day of a Wedding scheduled for later this week at an FSSPX Chapel being transferred to a parish Church with a diocesan priest accustomed to celebrating the TLM – with someone who heard it telling me the FSSPX priest cheerfully announced it, giving full details for any who were minded to attend without a word of discouragement, and saying the change surprisingly had nothing to do with the suddenly current situation.