From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
I recently read your “In Illo Tempore: 8th Sunday after Pentecost” commentary on One Peter Five. I ask your opinion on this, given your remarks on suffering. What would you say to someone who is suffering, due to having gone to an SSPX chapel for years, who has come to fall in love with that community since the issuing TC by Pope Francis, and now feels cut off due to the recent excommunications levied against laity, where out of humility, he feels that he can’t simply write off the excommunications as invalid. As someone who feels they found a solid, stable community with the Society, and now feel unjustly commanded by Rome to cut myself off from them, being forced back into the Diocesan structure again, I’m feeling much suffering, confusion and bitter zeal. Any words of advice would be helpful. Thank you and God Bless.
You are not alone.
I am still grappling with the fact that the Holy See and some bishops – with the sloppy documents they put out – have gone out of their way to scare people, to make them feel like outsiders or transgressors. This is an epoch when everyone is supposed to be hyper-pastoral, to listen, to accompany as people discern. According to a footnote, adulterers can receive Communion after “discerning”, but if you “discern” that you want to attend a TLM at an SSPX chapel you are … what? It’s not even clear “what” you are, so poorly drafted are these declarations and explanations.
However badly done it was, the “Explanatory Note”, which has no juridical force, did reference a previous document which made some distinctions about lay people who frequent chapels of the SSPX. The 1996 Explanatory Note describes people who attend SSPX chapels without having a “schismatic spirit”. In that case a person does not incur any censure.
In what you wrote, I do not pick up any sense of defiance of Rome or the local bishop. In fact, you seem concerned to respect their authority. Also, you state that you have developed a strong bond with the community of a chapel. That does not sound like a “schismatic spirit” to me. However, that is something only you can determine.
I note that you mentioned that you have gone to the SSPX chapel “since the issuing of TC”. It seems that you simply want to have the Church’s traditional sacred liturgy. That’s your primary motive. You did not write, “I go there in defiance of the Pope and the local bishop and no one can stop me!”
When laws place restrictions on people the Church wants us to interpret the laws as strictly as possible so that there isn’t “restriction creep”. Laws are not supposed to be cruel. Even though, as I understand, the 2026 Explanatory Note doesn’t have any juridical effect, in the spirit of that principle of interpretation of law – that is odiosa restringenda – it seems to me that your participation at an SSPX chapel especially because of the social bonds you now have, will not result in a censure, either automatic or declared.
So much suffering and anxiety has been inflicted on so many people because of ideology driven despotism. Let us ask Our Blessed Mother to intervene with the High Priest and bring this mess to an end.
Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thine intercession was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me.
Amen.
As I have recounted elsewhere, in my variegated religious journey for a period of time I went from Rome to Orthodoxy (Antiochian-for those who know the Orthodox world, you have to know the jurisdiction to get context), and to that end, I stood up in the temple, in front of the whole congregation and the holy icons, and renounced the Pope and all his works. So, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen’s put down of Dan Quayle in, what, 1988?, I have been a schismatic, I know schism, and this SSPX thing ain’t schism.
Well, this is similar to my situation but different. I wonder: “Am I excommunicated?” Honestly, I don’t know and it anguishes me.
I go to the SSPX once a month because there is only one SSPX mass every month in my country. Unlike other SSPX parishioners, I go to the Novus Ordo mass the other weeks because I don’t think it is enough with one monthly mass and I think the NO mass is fully valid. I do believe that the Novos Ordo Mass is focused on the community, protestantized and often irreverent (please no more applauses and jokes: this is not a theater, for God’s sake).
To me, it is clear that the Church is in state of necessity because I have two eyes. But does this justify the disobedience of the SSPX? Wouldn’t this justify any initiative of any group that has good intentions? Is it the esplanatory note valid? If it is not, what authority and value do the Vatican has? If it is valid, how should we interpret it? Are the sedevacantists right? Are the non-Catholics right?
I think my excommunation hinges on whether I “adhere” to the doctrine of the SSPX (whatever that means) or if I go because of liturgical reasons. But I don’t go to the SSPX for liturgical reasons (the Latin Mass is nice but it is a strange world for me, because I was raised in the Novus Ordo). I really go to the SSPX for doctrinal reasons. Not because I am that devout and traditional (I think I am a very bad Catholic and my faith is very tiny), but because one of my sincerely held doctrines is the Law of Non Contradiction.
If the last two Popes are right, Christ was wrong and, hence, Catholicism is false. This is not up for debate. “Nobody goes to the Father but through Me” cannot be made logically compatible with “all religions are valid and my god is not better than your god”. That’s a fact, Jack. The same with adultery, with proselytizing, etc. And don’t get me started about priests saying heresies in the Novus Ordo masses I attend (not all masses of course, from time to time).
So traditional Catholicism is my last stop before leaving Catholicism. Protestantism does not make sense to me (Sola Scriptura is logically absurd) and Orthodoxy seems to fractured to be true. So for me there are only two options: traditional Catholicism is true or Christianity is false (and I fall back on deism, because the proofs of the existence of God are really good).
There is no traditionalist community in my country but the SSPX (and only once a month). I go to the SSPX to try to avoid leaving Catholicism. Sedevacantism is also a coherent position, but I don’t want to leave the Church and, in addition, there are no Sedevacantists community in my country. And praying the Rosary at home without going to mass (what Sedevacantist people do when they don’t have community) has never worked for me. Community is good for me.
So I go to the SSPX for doctrinal reasons? You bet I do: to escape the doctrine of the synodal church. Do I “adhere” to the beliefs of the SSPX? This is more tricky. The only doctrine of the SSPX that is condemed by the Vatican is the rejection of Vatican II. And I do reject Vatican II. To me it is obvious that this is the root of all current evils in the Church. There are statements of Vatican II that contradict traditional doctrine and other are ambiguous and have been planted and usted by modernists to dismantle traditional doctrine: this is why Vatican II is the only dogma they cannot allow to be denied.
So I guess I am excommunicated, right? I guess I am. But is it Vatican II a dogma? Am I willing to pay an eternity of torment to be right and feel myself with more authority than the Pope? If I fully return to the synodal Church, am I willing to pay an eternity of torment because I followed the heresies and apostasies of the synodal Church? I am between a rock and a hard place.
As many people, after experimenting with different ideologies in my youth, I slowly returned to the Catholic faith of my parents and my childhood. Back then, it seemed to me that I had found a rock to rely on. While the entire world changing and declining, I could trust the Catholic Church. The words of Christ, always the same words, giving eternal life.
In addition, I could put my mind to rest, because I shouldn’t investigate if every word said by the Church was true or not. For me, a brainy guy that anlyzes everything, not having to analyze the foundation of my worldview (Catholicism) was really satisfying.
It was not going to be. Now, being a Catholic is a labyrinth. Who is right? The conservatives inside the Church? The SSPX? The 1958 sedevacantists? The benevacantists? (the last Pope was Benedict XVI) Every of these groups have very good reasons and arguments that don’t add up. Am I betting my eternal soul on knowing to navigate this labyrinth of arguments and counter-arguments. Honestly, I am anguished. Next week, there is a SSPX mass in my country and I still don’t know what to do to save my eternal soul. Schismatics or modernists? Between a rock and a hard place.
[I really feel for you. This is the sort of confusion that has been sown by this rather botched effort from the DDF. For now, at least, the canonical issues of the DECREE are on hold, because of the appeal made by the SSPX according to Canon Law. I don’t sense anything in what you wrote that is overtly “schismatic”. Moreover, I am not aware that rejection of Vatican II is a canonical crime yet. After all, it was supposed to be a “pastoral” Council, not a dogmatic Council. Yes, the Council documents contain dogmatic, defined truths of the Catholic Faith, but over all it was not intended to teach anything new, but rather to engage the “world” in our day… well… not OUR day, the day of the early 60’s which is waaaaay in the rear view mirror now. ***There is no canonical delict formally entitled “rejection of the Second Vatican Council.” Nevertheless, particular forms of rejection can constitute a delict and can result in a censure. The principal provision is canon 1365 of the current Code: “A person who, apart from the case of heresy, apostasy, or schism, teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects a teaching mentioned in canon 750 §2 or canon 752 and, after being warned by the Apostolic See or the Ordinary, does not retract, is to be punished with a censure and deprivation of office. Other expiatory penalties may also be added.” A Catholic who declares that Vatican II possessed no legitimate teaching authority, that Catholics owe none of its teaching any submission, or that the Council was not a true ecumenical council may be rejecting the exercise of the Church’s authentic magisterium. Canon 752 requires “religious submission of intellect and will” even for authentic teachings that have not been proposed by a definitive act. Such rejection could fall under canon 1365 when it is: external and publicly manifested; obstinate; directed against a teaching covered by canon 750 §2 or canon 752; followed by an ecclesiastical warning; and not retracted after that warning. The censure under canon 1365 is ferendae sententiae, meaning that it does not arise automatically but must be imposed by competent authority. Also, criticism is not the same as rejection. And INTERIOR doubts are not the same as EXTERNAL manifestation of them. Mere disagreement with, criticism of, or difficulty concerning Vatican II is not, as such, a canonical delict.*** It’s hard to know what to suggest other than to say that we need greater clarity about all of this and that might take some time. It also isn’t a good idea to make snap decisions when deeply upset. We need a period of calm to sort things out. Hence, don’t do anything rashly and don’t over analyze and analyze and wonder and fret and guess in a closed cycle. Don’t torture yourself.]
It would be appropriate for a person’s pastor or bishop to advise this individual, but not a priest who has never met the individual. Sunday attendance at an SSPX chapel includes listening to a homily and being exposed to all kinds of false teaching, to say nothing of the discussions of people outside Mass. What would Pope Leo XIV advise this individual?
mcferran: What would Pope Leo XIV advise this individual?
We may never know, given that we have nothing from him that carries any weight. There is no indication in the Explanatory Note that the DDF even showed it to him, much less consulted him or sought approval. Nothing. We have no idea if it reflects the mind of Leo XIV or not. Time will tell.
listening to a homily and being exposed to all kinds of false teaching
That verges on rash judgement. You know nothing of the quality of preaching at this fellow’s chapel. While it is true that some SSPX priests have said harsh things about the present situation in Rome and elsewhere, it is also true that you are far more likely to hear something odd or downright wrong from a pulpit in a suburban US parish. I would hazard a guess that you are very unlikely to hear “false teaching” from an SSPX pulpit, at least as far as faith and morals go. Outside of those, what they say could be chalked up to debatable opinions.
to say nothing of the discussions of people outside Mass.
And that is exactly what YOU should say about those people whom you do not know: nothing.
I’m not sure what to make of, “being forced back into the Diocesan structure again.”
Does the diocese provide Mass in the Extraordinary Form?
What is odious about the diocese, that requires “force” to attend Mass there?
How did we get pantsuited nuns, homosexual Jesuits, tabernacles ripped out, and generational loss of faith?
“Obedience.” It was all forced in the name of “obedience,” and people went along with it in the name of “obedience”.
Obedience that isn’t rooted in divine charity, that is not in accord with the order of love, that is done out of fear or compliance or people pleasing or ability, etc., isn’t obedience.
If your conscience is screaming at you, it is a pretty good idea to stop whatever it is that you are doing that is causing your conscience to scream. We are obliged to follow a well-formed conscience, but even an ill-formed conscience, if it is telling us to stop, we should stop what it is that we are doing (Summa Theologiae I-II, Q. 19, A. 5.). Actively acting on an ill-formed conscience is a different matter — we are obligated to inform ourselves and not act in vincible ignorance.
So –> You receive a command from a legitimate authority. Your conscience starts screaming at you at the thought of following the command. Do not follow the command but inform yourself about the command – is it a legitimate command? What is it asking you to do? Is it moral? Why is your conscience screaming? Dig into that. Is your intellect mistaken about something? Don’t act until your conscience settles down and you understand what is up, and you can act according to right reason, according to the order of love. — stay the status quo.
By pausing, investigating, correcting ignorance, and refusing to act blindly, one avoids “indiscreet obedience” (blindly doing evil) and”disobedience” (rebelling out of mere pride). Let reason rule. Remember the Son of God is the Logos of the Father. Catholicism requires, as part of the virtue of reason, that we think before we act, not check our brains at the door.
Don’t act rashly. “I am confused.” “This causes pain.” “This seems unjust.” These are all indicators that one needs to STOP, as any action, without reasoning things through by putting on the Mind of Christ, is necessarily rash. II-II, Q. 53, A. 3.
But, as Fr. Z said, don’t ruminate and overanalyze (granted one person’s overanalysis is another person’s (like an INTJ’s) normative analytical process). If you are doing that, simply STOP. Stay the status quo until new information comes. The analysis is a null result – await new information.
—-
Look, the devil is playing all sides in this; what he wants is for people to have emotional reactions and then act on those emotions — because those become hooks and channels and habits for other ways for you to be manipulated. God wants you to act according to right reason. If, for whatever reason, you are not acting according to right reason (your conscience will scream at you if you are not, even if it is a malformed conscience) that is a STOP and stay the status quo command. Get the house of your mind in order and then act according to right reason, remembering that “right reason” entails staying in the present course of action until new information can be found. That is prudence.
I’m in exile from my beloved SSPX chapel not because my husband and I think we can’t attend in good conscience, but because we’ve been aggressively browbeaten by Catholic relations of ours who demand we switch to one of the “safe” options in our area.
We didn’t take the Vatican’s decree or statements lightly. We prayed. We evaluated. We took in the consensus of canon lawyers’ opinions. As upsetting as the DDF’s actions have been, we concluded that we had no obligation at present to upend our family’s longstanding liturgical routine or to separate ourselves from the wonderful priests and congregation we’ve gotten to know over the years.
Do we hold strong opinions about many of the higher-order questions surrounding the SSPX controversy? Absolutely. But we also acknowledge we’re mere laity; many of the most complicated, most contentious debates will only be settled by pertinent authorities in the far future. So long as we had moral certainty that our family was doing the prudent thing for our situation at the ground level (i.e. providing our children with a stable, orthodox faith environment), we were content to monitor the situation as it develops without rashly panicking or shunning our current community. (We also have extremely non-partisan logistical considerations as well, such as not wanting to 3x or 4x our Sunday commute time if it’s not necessary.)
Unfortunately, my husband and I failed to anticipate the unhinged hysteria the Vatican’s words would induce in our near relations. We’ve been shouted at. We’ve been sobbed over. We’ve been unjustly accused of all sorts of things. It’s a trite example, but the best comparison I have is that it’s been like trying to convince an unhinged leftist that you’re not a racist. They’ve already decided the SSPX (and those who go there) are X, Y, Z, so your attempts to explain yourself fall on deaf ears. And this is from normally decent, pious people.
In charity, we’re trying to quell the worst of the hysteria for the sake of family peace before we resume attendance at our local chapel, but it feels pretty hopeless at times. For all the talk of “schismatics” lacking charity, I’ve never before experienced such reactive irrationality and a pervasive presumption of bad faith from Catholics whose good character I otherwise esteem. These are people who know us, who know the Catholic faith is our entire life, and that all we want is to save our souls and the souls of our children.
I’m frequently irritated, depressed, and disheartened. Being away from my usual Mass community hasn’t helped; I’ve been subjected twice now at other parishes to grating anti-SSPX sermons that, at a minimum, contained factual errors about the complexities of the SSPX’s situation. At least this whole mess has compelled my husband and I to pray more together.
Culpable though they are, I don’t hold our worried loved ones primarily responsible for this mess. The Vatican could have chosen to handle this entire situation very differently, but instead they’ve acted in a way that’s caused maximum distress and confusion for all the faithful affected.
I desperately wish our family would give us the necessary space to humbly and prayerfully navigate the complexities of this whole situation. Instead, they’ve tried to emotionally strongarm us into complying with the sensitivities of their own consciences, rather than respecting ours. It hurts terribly.
I think this is a great opportunity for the original poster to put this content and emotion into a letter to his bishop. He won’t be able to fix the SSPX situation, but see what a response could look like, as far as wiggle room toward those who love the TLM while not wishing to separate themselves from the papacy. And, if there are not diocesan TLMs nearby, the letter could ask for one (or more) to be established. Never let a good crisis go to waste!