The Explanatory Note from the DDF today references the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts’s Explanatory Note on the excommunication for schism incurred by adherents of the movement of Bishop Marcel Lefebvre of 24 August 1996. The DDF says they adopted this as their own. Hence, when the DDF talks about adherence to schism, we can refer to the Pontifical Council’s document for guidance. What does it say about “formal adherence”. My emphases
5. As stated in Motu Proprio n. 5 c), latae sententiae excommunication for schism concerns 1 those who “formally adhere” to the said schismatic movement. Although the question regarding the exact scope of the notion of “formal adherence to the schism” should be referred to the competent Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it seems to this Pontifical Council that such adherence must imply two complementary elements:
a) one of an internal nature, consisting in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism, that is, in opting in such a way for the followers of Lefebvre that this option is placed above obedience to the Pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church);
b) another of an external nature, consisting in the externalization of that option, the most evident sign of which will be the exclusive participation in the Lefebvrian “ecclesial” acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (this is, however, a non-univocal sign, since there is [NB] the possibility that some faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of Lefebvre’s followers without sharing their schismatic spirit).
Therefore, if a person is simply going to SSPX Masses because – for example – the local bishop has callously snuffed them out locally, without necessarily agreeing with the positions of the SSPX about (*whatever*), then he doesn’t not formally adhere to schism and does not incur an excommunication latae sententiae.
As the Explanatory Note of the Council continues:
7. In the case of the other faithful, however, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrian movement—undertaken without adopting the movement’s attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity—is not sufficient to constitute formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice, judging their situation may prove more difficult. Account must be taken, above all, of the person’s intention and the manifestation of that interior disposition in outward actions. Consequently, the various situations must be judged on a case-by-case basis within the competent fora (external and internal).
Given the way law is interpreted in the Church, I would conclude not only “occasional” but also “exclusive”.
Say Joe Badofdonuts is going only to the SSPX chapel on Sunday mornings for Mass, but he also attends his territorial parish for confession and other services. His participation at the SSPX chapel on Sunday is not exclusive.
Furthermore, I agree with Ed Peters: that category – latae sententiae – should be abolished.
For those who do attend SSPX Masses, what about Holy Communion?
Father, what do you make of the language in the DDF’s Procedure for Reconciliation of Priests and Lay Faithful Coming from the SSPX that requires:
“With respect to the lay faithful described in nos. 3–4, it is sufficient that they approach a priest who is in full communion with the Church and resolve not to attend the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X in the future.”
To clarify, nos. 3 and 4 concern:
“(3) Lay faithful who attended the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X solely for liturgical or spiritual reasons; and
(4) Lay faithful who, although aware of the tensions with the Holy See, do not reject either the Magisterium or the authority of the Roman Pontiff.”
I would appreciate some guidance on this. My family occasionally attends a local SSPX chapel, though by no means exclusively. What should we do?
Not to worry… I hear that a certain bishop of a prominent see in the Southern U.S., well known for his interest in the traditional liturgy and those who attend it, has authorized the addition of an extra row of folding chairs at the rear of the TLM chapel he recently established in one of the charming rural areas of his diocese. His Excellency is reportedly considering adding an extra parking space as well!
The local bishop also has the authority to make LS excommunication the penalty for the lay faithful attending an SSPX mass, as is currently the local law of the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska.
Not trying to troll, but we have no clue where this is going. It looks like enforcement is going to be left up to local ordinaries, so this asterisks matters.
So my reading of the whole situation is this:
Leo/Fernandez intended, in the last proposed “dialogue,” to give the SSPX great latitude. If you read Fernandez’s proposal, it was pretty clear to me that he was getting ready to say something like “admit that the new mass is valid and that Vatican II (and popes since) didn’t promulgate formal heresy…and you can have as many reservations as you want in conscience about interpreting it in light of tradition. There is no particular ‘new doctrine’ that Vatican II binds Catholics to believe that they didnt have to believe before it (beyond something obscure like the episcopacy being a grade of holy orders, maybe). You are free to believe a lot of that was bad prudential judgments. Submission of intellect and will does not mean you have to just blindly accept non-dogmatic stuff, it just means engaging it with proper respect.”
It actually seemed really promising to me. But, the SSPX was clearly wary of Fernandez personally, and totally mistrustful after the doctrinal chaos of the Francis papacy, and also needed bishops before they had none left (because whether they say this out loud or not, some of their followers will insist on a “pure trad” lineage of episcopal ordinations)…so they spit in his face.
But, I and many others petitioned Fernandez and Leo to essentially just…impose doctrinal peace unilaterally. To basically say “nothing you believe is heresy as long as you admit nothing we have taught is formal heresy.” No need for a dialogue to admit that, on Rome’s part. And then the ball is in their court.
Well, very cleverly, it looks like that is basically what they wound up doing. Sure, they’re all declared in schism and excommunicated after these ordinations. But, the “statement of adherence” for reconciling…is extremely mild. It certainly doesn’t contain any of the ideological insistence on, say, religious liberty by which Cardinal Muller apparently scuttled the potential reunion in 2011. Indeed, it is unclear what in it contradicts the SSPX position at all (the official one, anyway; though there are many extremists and crypto-sedevacantists hidden among them, I suspect).
So it raises the question…what’s stopping them from corporately (or in large batches, anyway) from agreeing to this statement of adherence? Leo/Fernandez have, here, laid out the “minimums”…and they’re very minimal indeed. So what actual objection remains? It was a very clever move, honestly.
the “formula of adherence” includes this requirement: “I accept the doctrine taught in No. 25 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council concerning the Magisterium of the Church and the adherence owed to it.”
the second paragraph of LG 25:
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
i can’t see common ground between the parties to this dispute, though i’d be glad to proven wrong.