If diocesan Traditional Masses were to be discontinued, some Catholics who do not have access to FSSP, IKC, or IBP Masses are wondering, would it be morally permissible to attend Traditional Masses offered by SSPX priests? Here's a Q&A to help with that decision.
(Jump to question:)
Is the SSPX in schism?
What is a de facto schism?
Is there still a danger of de facto schism?
What is the canonical status
of the SSPX?
Do the SSPX priests have faculties now?
May we attend the Masses of SSPX priests?
Is the SSPX in schism?
In 1988 the superior and four bishops of the SSPX were said by a Pope to be excommunicated.
In performing such an act [an unlawful episcopal ordination], notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them... Mons. Lefebvre and [the ordained SSPX bishops] have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. P. John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei,1988
This excommunication has since been remitted, in 2009.
On the basis of the powers expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree I remit the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae incurred by [the SSPX bishops]. Card. Re, Congregation for Bishops, Decree Remitting the Excommunication, 2009
Although the excommunication was not of the SSPX as a whole, nor of those who associate with them, but only of Archbishop Lefebvre and the four SSPX bishops he ordained, the warning was given by the Holy See not to "support the schism":
The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto [by this fact] the very grave penalty of excommunication. Card. Gantin, Congregation for Bishops,1988
In 2003 the prefect of the Ecclesia Dei commission wrote, "To the extent that [the priests of the SSPX] adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated." We'll discuss what constitutes adherence in a bit.
With regard to those faithful who associate with the SSPX, in 1991 and in particular for procuring an SSPX bishop's services for the sacrament of confirmation, the CDF under Card. Ratzinger declared: "the activities engaged in...though blameworthy on various accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism."
In any case, with the excommunication having been lifted, it is clear that the SSPX bishops are not presently de jure [by law] schismatics, and so there need be no concern that SSPX priests and faithful who attend an SSPX Mass are de jure schismatics.
The question now can only be whether SSPX priests and faithful are in schism de facto [in fact].
What is a de facto schism?
A de jure schismatic is one who has been excommunicated by a bishop (ferendae sententiae, by a sentence to be brought), whereas a de facto (in fact) schismatic is one who has incurred excommunication automatically by his own intentional act (latae sententiae, by a broad sentence).
At the time of the de jure excommunication, those associated with the SSPX were said to be excommunicated latae sententiae for de facto schism if they adhered to the schism both interiorly and exteriorly:
5. As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who "adhere formally" to the said schismatic movement. ...[S]uch formal adherence would have to imply two complementary elements: a) one of internal nature, consisting in a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism,... which puts such an option above obedience to the Pope..., b) the other of an external character, ...the most manifest sign of which will be the exclusive participation in Lefebvrian "ecclesial" acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church. Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts, 1988
The adherence which causes de facto schism is formal, which means that the separation is intended and chosen.
6. In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that...there is a formal adherence. PCLT,1988
The SSPX priests were said to formally adhere to the schism because their ministerial activity within the SSPX demonstrated their intention to act in union with the excommunicated bishops to the exclusion of acting within the Church.
The case with the faithful was a bit different.
On the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one's own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement. PCLT, 1988
Attendance at the SSPX Mass by the faithful without the intention to adopt the schismatic attitude would not have been formal adherence, and so they were not by the fact of their attendance in schism.
However, they were considered in danger of imbibing "the schismatic mentality," [PC Ecclesia Dei 1999] which might cause them to be in de facto schism.
Is there still a danger of de facto schism?
Now that the excommunication has been lifted there is still a danger of de facto schism, but not in the same way. The danger at the time was of adherence to the schism. Now that the excommunication has been lifted, the danger is about the attitude which caused the schism.
[T]he root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition...[which] comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth...[C]ontradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal [i.e. Ordinary] Magisterium. John Paul II, ED 1988
The notion of 'Tradition' includes development of doctrine which in turn necessitates obsequium religiosum to authoritative teaching. To deny this would result in an incomplete notion of Tradition. [See my 2 posts on obsequium religiosum.] Further, the necessity of submission to ordinary Magisterium is itself a traditional teaching, and therefore to oppose Magisterium would be anti-traditional, hence a contradiction.
An "incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition" is what threatens to cause de facto schism for members of the SSPX.
(Read my post on schism.)
What is the canonical status of the SSPX?
Even if not in schism, the SSPX has an irregular status in the Church.
The SSPX was founded in 1970 with the permission of the Bishop of Fribourg in Switzerland. It was erected legitimately as a 'pious union,' the preliminary stage towards becoming an officially recognized religious institute or Society of Apostolic Life. However, in 1976, when Archbp. Lefebvre ordained priests after being forbidden by the Holy See, he was suspended a collatione ordinum - from conferring holy orders, and eventually a divinis - from licitly conferring any sacrament. Since then the SSPX has remained in limbo as an association.
The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. ... [U]ntil the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church... P. Benedict XVI, Remission of the Excommunication, 2009
Again we see the reason that the SSPX was given no canonical status was for doctrinal reasons, namely their "incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition," as said earlier.
[T]he problems now to be addressed ...concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. ...The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But ...[a]nyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life. P. Benedict XVI, Remission of the Excommunication, 2009
Specifically, the SSPX has not demonstrated an obsequium religiosum to post-Vatican II Magisterium, primarily in regard to Vatican II, but also regarding other third category teachings since that council, which the SSPX has interpreted to be contrary to the mind of the Church. I say "which they have interpreted" because as we have seen in other posts, the difficulty with the teachings in question is that they are ambiguous, and thus could be interpreted in a way which is false. The solution instead is that they be interpreted in accord with Tradition.
The fact that the SSPX priests "do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church" might lead one to believe that they cannot say a public Mass without sin, and that the faithful sin in attending such Masses. On the contrary, this is not what has been said:
1. "In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." 2. "We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass... If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin." 3. His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded: "It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified." Msgr. Camille Perl, Ecclesia Dei Commission, 2003
According to this commission, one does not sin by attending an SSPX Mass, nor even by supporting the ministry by a donation, and one can satisfy their Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass. One must not attend, however, with a schismatic intention as we described above. And once again there is given a warning about attending, presumably because of the danger of imbibing a schismatic mentality.
Since the schismatic attitude which is a lack of obsequium is displayed by individuals not only in many traditional Catholic communities, but also in many liberal Catholic communities, this attitude alone, it would seem, cannot be the criteria for strictly avoiding attendance at an SSPX Mass unless it also prevents us from attending those liberal Catholic Masses.
And yet in the above quotation, it also seems, the canonical status alone is not considered as enough grounds for avoidance either, since one may lawfully participate in an SSPX Mass "for the sake of devotion."
Bishop Schneider has a very positive outlook on the canonical situation of the SSPX:
The Holy See asked me to visit the two seminaries of the SSPX...I have a good impression of my visits...I think the issue of Vatican II should not be taken as the condicio sine qua non, since it was an assembly with primarily pastoral aims and characteristics. A part of the conciliar statements reflects only its time and possesses a temporary value, as disciplinary and pastoral documents do. When we look in a two millennia old perspective of the Church, we can state, that there is on both sides (Holy See and the SSPX) an over-evaluation and over-estimation of the pastoral reality in the Church which is Vatican II. When the SSPX believes, worships and conducts a moral life as it was demanded and recognized by the Supreme Magisterium and was observed universally in the Church during a centuries long period and when the SSPX recognizes the legitimacy of the Pope and the diocesan bishops and prays for them publicly and recognizes also the validity of the sacraments according to the editio typica of the new liturgical books, this should suffice for a canonical recognition of the SSPX on behalf of the Holy See. Otherwise...history will one day reproach... the ecclesiastical authorities of our days that they have “laid on the brothers a greater burden than required” (cf. Acts 15:28), which is contrary to the pastoral method of the Apostles. Bp Athanasius Schneider, 2015 interview, (edited here for grammatical clarity)
I interpret Bp. Schneider to be saying that while the SSPX's loyalty must remain with the Pope, there is to be expected some disagreement and respectful discussion about third category teachings like those contained in Vatican II. Indeed as we saw in a previous discussion, such dialogue is necessary for true development of Catholic doctrine. Thus such dialogue need not be considered an impediment to the SSPX's canonical status.
Do the SSPX priests have faculties now?
To complicate things further, without having their suspension clearly lifted, nor clearly having been given a canonical ministry in the Church, the SSPX priests have now been given limited faculties.
[D]espite the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St. Pius X finds itself, the Holy Father...has decided to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages... Where [a fully regular priest is not able to assist at the marriage]...the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass [with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo], reminding him of the duty to forward the relevant documents to the Diocesan Curia as soon as possible. Gerard Card. Mueller, Ecclesia Dei, 2017
All SSPX priests can now licitly say a nuptial Mass and perform a wedding rite. But that is not all. No, that is not all.
For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins.[15]...I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made... P. Francis, Misericordia et misera, 2016
All SSPX priests can now licitly hear confessions and give absolution. But again that is not all.
"The Holy See," the Secretary of Ecclesia Dei explained, "permits and tolerates the priestly ordinations of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, even while continuing to consider them valid but not licit, subject to communication of the names of the ordinands to the bishop of the place." La Stampa
The Holy See now permits SSPX ordinations although it is unclear how those ordinations can be illicit if they are permitted. Without the actual text from Rome this is confusing to say the least, but here is the SSPX interpretation of the text:
This text from Rome...states that the Society’s ordinations are licit... These various legal and canonical acts have already been done and I think that they prevent any possibility of schism. Of course, we must always be vigilant about this… Bp. Bernard Fellay, SSPX, Interview 2017
The argument then can be made, as Fr. Zuhlsdorf says, that the SSPX priests "can and do receive faculties from legitimate authority and, hence, they are not suspended."
According to the moral mean, we want to avoid a laxist attitude that interprets moral actions as fine until proven without doubt to be morally wrong. On the other hand, we must also avoid a rigorist attitude that interprets actions as evil until proven to be lawful. Virtue lies somewhere in between these two extremes. In other words, since the SSPX have been given certain faculties by the Pope, we should interpret that as a good sign that they are not suspended, while we proceed with due caution.
The SSPX do have faculties to confer Matrimony and the Sacrament of Penance then, and possibly Holy Orders, and yet for all this, the status of the SSPX is irregular, which therefore causes hesitancy on the part of the faithful.
May we attend the Masses of SSPX priests and receive the other Sacraments from them?
St. Thomas says it is a sin to go to the Mass of a condemned heretic but it is not necessarily a sin to attend the Mass of a priest who is a de facto heretic. (Read my post on heresy.) I think we have to say the same for the Mass of a de facto schismatic priest, because St. Thomas' reason is that the Church would not have us passing judgment on priests based on mere suspicion. (ST III, 82, 9, ad corp.) It is lawful to go to the Mass of a priest in de facto schism because we would have to judge him on mere suspicion in order to shun his Mass, whereas it belongs to the Church to make that judgment. The SSPX priests, however, are not now under the Church's judgment.
Let us consider the canon law that allows the faithful to receive valid sacraments even from non-Catholic ministers when true need arises.
§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid. Can. 844
When it is "physically or morally impossible" to receive the sacraments from a Catholic priest, we are allowed to receive valid sacraments from a non-Catholic minister, if "true spiritual advantage" will accrue from it. Since the SSPX is within the Church, should this law not apply a fortiori to their sacraments?
"Morally impossible" simply means that it is not feasible for all practical purposes. But then without clear direction, who is to decide what is not feasible but our own informed consciences. Is it feasible to bring our children to certain "regular" Catholic Masses where the priest, the lay ministers, and the congregation behave in a way that scandalizes our children? Is such a Mass preferable to reverent SSPX Masses where "true spiritual advantage" is found? (I say this assuming we have no other comparable option like the FSSP.) If the SSPX Masses truly are dangerous, then choosing between an SSPX Mass and an irreverent diocesan Mass seems to be no more than a case of 'pick your poison.'
On another note, consider that diocesan priests who minister to the Traditional community have been forbidden to offer Traditional sacraments in many dioceses, on account of CDW's Response to Dubia re: Traditiones Custodes, whereas the SSPX priests are now permitted to absolve penitents, and marry couples, and say the nuptial Mass in the Traditional rite. Does this not send a message that those seeking the Traditional rites of the Sacraments should consider the SSPX (when Sacraments from the 'regular' priestly societies are not accessible?)
One more thought: I believe there has been a case in which a bishop has given faculties to an individual SSPX priest in his diocese, having judged it the best way to provide for the needs of the Traditional Latin Mass community in his flock. Such an incident could perhaps set a precedent for other bishops.
I hope these considerations will give the reader some things to ponder when deciding whether to attend an SSPX Mass. To do so is not evil 'in object'*** but it might become morally evil by 'intended end' or by 'circumstance,' and it is therefore a prudential matter.
The most important takeaway, I believe, is to be very intentional when making this choice, and then vigilant about keeping one's intentions pure. We can do this by forming community with like-minded Catholics who will keep us on the straight and narrow. In the end, wherever we discern to attend Mass now that "the smoke of Satan" (as P. Paul VI called it) has entered the Church, we must approach the Sacraments with the devout disposition Christ would have of us. And we must take care to nurture a virtuous obsequium that will keep us fiercely loyal to Church Magisterium.
*These are Societies of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right, and their priests are subject to the bishops of their respective dioceses:
FSSP (Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter),
IKC (Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest) and
IBP (Institutum a Bono Pastore, Institute of the Good Shepherd).
**SSPX - Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X (Priestly Society of St. Pius X)
***The three moral determinants for a good act are: object, end, and circumstances. To be good 'in object' is not enough to make an act good unless the other two determinants are also good.
Comments