The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterated Wednesday that if the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X carries out plans to illicitly consecrate bishops in July, those involved will commit an act of schism and be subject to the canonical penalty of excommunication.
“We reiterate what has already been communicated,” wrote DDF prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, “the episcopal ordinations announced by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X do not have the requisite papal mandate.”
“This act will constitute ‘a schismatic act’ (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, no. 3) and ‘formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offence against God and entails the excommunication established under Church law’ (ibid., 5c; cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, 24 August 1996).”
The canonical crimes and consequences of the SSPX’s planned episcopal consecrations have already been made clear, and explained for those directly involved — that is to say those who impart or receive ordination as a bishop without a papal mandate.
But as the date of the proposed schismatic act draws near, some Catholics have begun to ask what the effects will be for the priests and laypeople who have joined the SSPX, or who regularly attend its liturgies.
So who, exactly, is going to be excommunicated?
What is the nature of the impending schism?
And who, exactly, becomes a “schismatic” if it all goes ahead as planned?
Remind me again, what exactly is the SSPX planning to do, and why is it a crime?
We’ve been over this a few times now.
But alright — in the words of Peter Parker — let’s do this one last time:
Episcopal consecration without a papal mandate — a bishop ordaining a man as a bishop without the explicit permission or instruction of the Bishop of Rome — is a specific crime in canon law, which carries the penalty of a latae sententiae excommunication.
This means the bishop who does the consecrating and the one who is consecrated are both excommunicated by the act itself.
The SSPX superior has repeatedly made it clear in recent months that he knows this, and is going to do it anyway.
So consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate is what canon law means by ‘schism?’
Again, we’ve talked about this in detail here.
But the short answer is this: In addition to illicit consecration of a bishop there is a separate canonical crime called schism — “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
In 1988, Pope St. John Paul II stated directly that SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s plan to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate would constitute an act of schism.
John Paul wrote that “this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.”
He also wrote that “the root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops.”
After illicit episcopal consecrations, a penalty of excommunication was formally declared by John Paul II against SSPX bishops, and then remitted by Benedict XVI, who hoped that lifting the penalty would be part of an effort to reunite the group with the Church’s hierarchy.
In recent months, SSPX superior Fr. Davide Pagliarani has written several public letters and given interviews explaining that he and the SSPX still hold to the notion of tradition described by John Paul II as “incomplete and contradictory.
And as Cardinal Fernandez made clear on Wednesday, if the consecrations go ahead in July, the SSPX will be committing the same act their previous leaders did in 1988, for the same reasons, and will incur the same consequences.
If the SSPX consecrations happen, who actually commits the schism — the bishop consecrating, the bishops being consecrated, or everyone in the room?
Well, according to the norms of canon 1387, those who perform and receive the consecration are excommunicated because of the illicit consecration itself.
As for who commits the schism, the same men are obviously and directly committing an act of schism as described and defined by the Holy See, both by St. John Paul II and by recent warnings and clarifications issued by the DDF.
But Cardinal Fernandez made a very important point on Wednesday — one not noticed by every reader.
The DDF’s statement said two things.
First, that the episcopal consecrations are an act of schism.
Second, that “formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offence against God and entails the excommunication established under Church law.”
That means something in canon law: That those who formally associate themselves to the schism of the organization’s leadership can incur their own excommunication.
It’s a broad and significant statement — and one worth diving into.
Well, what does ‘formal adherence to the schism’ mean — how does a person formally or informally adhere?
Now we’re getting into the canonical nitty-gritty of this situation.
While the term “formal adherence” might seem very vague, it was actually defined back in 1996 by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, now the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, in reference to the schismatic nature of the SSPX.
The explanation said that “such adherence must imply two complementary elements:
1. one [element] 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);
2. another [element] 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 the possibility that some faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of Lefebvre’s followers without sharing their schismatic spirit).”
In other words, a person could share in the schism of SSPX’s leaders — and be subject to the same excommunication — if he placed the SSPX and its actions above obedience to the pope, and manifested that disposition by some external action, which could include exclusive participation in SSPX liturgies.
Does that mean everyone goes to an SSPX Mass after July 1 is committing schism?
Not necessarily.
According to the Vatican’s statements, there is clearly some room for at least some people to participate in SSPX liturgies either without agreeing with the group’s schismatic actions, or without sufficiently manifesting that agreement externally, even if they do go to SSPX liturgies.
That’s among the reasons, for example, that attending Sunday Mass at an SSPX chapel has not been ruled out as a way to meet the Sunday obligation.
In short, there is a grey area of connection to the SSPX.
But the Vatican has been clear that this grey area does not cover every lay person, and does not seem to cover SSPX clergy at all.
“In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests, it seems clear that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that the two requirements mentioned above (n. 5) are met and that there is therefore a formal adherence,” the 1996 guidance says.
“In the case of other faithful, however, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrian movement, without adopting the movement’s attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity, is not sufficient to constitute formal membership in the movement. In pastoral practice, it may be more difficult to assess their situation.”
TL;DR: In 1996 the Vatican said that SSPX clergy would seem to meet the requirements to be declared in schism — and be excommunicated — but that not all laypeople who attend their chapels meet those requirements.
If this document was issued in 1996, does that mean SSPX clergy have been excommunicated for schism all that time?
Well, here’s what can be said.
The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts guidance indicated that SSPX priests and deacons meet the requirements of “adhering to schism” — and thus to incur the penalty of excommunication.
But, even if actually incurred, the Apostolic See has not formally declared those priests to be in schism, or declared their excommunication.
And in recent decades, the Vatican has used other language to describe the SSPX’s status — using phrases like “imperfect communion.”
At least some experts view that rhetoric as an exercise in politely veiled language; figuring that one is either in communion, or one is in schism, whether material or formal.
For some, the status of the group has seemed a bit muddled since Pope Benedict XVI lifted in 2009 declared excommunications on the surviving SSPX bishops, leading some to claim a new status, or era, for the entire society.
But when he lifted those excommunications, the pope aimed to clarify that his move was personal, not institutional, and changed nothing for the society as a group.
Benedict explained that “The excommunication [and its lifting] affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope.”
“The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties,” Benedict wrote.
“In order to make this clear once again: until 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.”
In other words, Pope Benedict was clear that he intended his act — lifting excommunications — to be a personal act, for those particular bishops, and not a kind of institutional approval.
After that, the matter got even more complex.
In the 2015 Year of Mercy during the pontificate of Francis, SSPX clerics were given confessional faculties, and also delegation to witness marriages.
And while that was framed as an act of mercy toward the laypeople who attend SSPX chapels, it indicated a solicitous Vatican approach to the SSPX.
That’s why the statement from Fernandez this week has been taken as such a strong statement.
The language Fernandez used this week — and the citations in his statement — would seem to suggest a return to a more exacting legal standard for the treatment of SSPX priests and deacons — a move away from the conciliation of Benedict and Francis, toward the hardline stance to the group of Pope St. John Paul II.
OK, but if SSPX priests are in schism, does that mean their sacraments are invalid?
You might reasonably expect that, but actually no, not according to the law.
Excommunicated clergy are, among other sanctions, prohibited from “exercising any ecclesiastical offices, duties, ministries or functions,” from “celebrating the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the other sacraments,” and “from administering sacramentals and from celebrating the other ceremonies of liturgical worship.”
But being prohibited from doing a thing is not the same as being incapable of doing it — if they were the same, then the episcopal consecrations in July could just be declared invalid and there would be a lot fewer headaches for the Vatican.
There is no question that priests of the SSPX can celebrate Mass validly.
And since 2015, priests of the SSPX have had the faculty to hear confessions validly in all circumstances, not only in danger of death.
Regardless of what happens in July — and even if an excommunication were declared against the priests of the SSPX — that faculty would have to be explicitly revoked to render their confessions invalid.
But while sacraments administered by SSPX clergy would still be valid — even if there was a return to the general state of schism and excommunication — there is still the legal expectation that the Church’s proper authorities would take steps to stop them from offering sacramental ministry.
In fact, canon 1331 states that if an excommunicated cleric is attempting to offer a sacrament, he “is to be removed, or else the liturgical action is to be suspended, unless there is a grave reason to the contrary.”
The reason for this is that medical penalities like excommunication — called censures — have as their primary aims the reform of the offender and the avoidance or mitigation of scandal to the wider community.
That is why there is also a significant canonical difference between the external effects of a penalty like excommunication, depending on whether it has been publicly declared by a competent authority, or simply incurred automatically but not yet declared.
The law presumes that the excommunicated cleric would be in a place where the liturgy could be suspended by Church officials — imagine an excommunicated cleric trying to offer Mass in an ordinary diocesan parish church, for example.
But because the SSPX have their own buildings, it seems unlikely that diocesan bishops would have much success suspending their liturgical celebrations.
Still, the law articulates an expectation that the illicit celebration of sacraments will be stopped by competent ecclesiastical authorities — and leaves to individual bishops the discernment about the degree to which that is possible for them.
So what about ordinary laypeople who go to SSPX liturgies? What’s their status?
Well, here things get a little complicated.
In order for a crime like schism to be committed, it is necessary that there be both an internal disposition and intention to commit the crime (as defined by the competent ecclesiastical authority) and an external manifestation of the internal disposition — a clear and unambiguous act which allows the Church to judge acted on the internal intention.
As we have seen, the Vatican has made it clear that just occasionally attending SSPX liturgies doesn’t qualify as a sufficient external manifestation of “adhering” to the society’s schism.
But the 1996 PCLT text cited by Cardinal Fernandez does say that “the most evident sign [of adhering to schism] will be the exclusive participation in the Lefebvrian ‘ecclesial’ acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church.”
That means it is at least possible for the Church to consider as schismatic — and subject to excommunication — a person who chooses to attend only SSPX liturgies, especially if schism is formally declared for leaders after the planned July episcopal consecrations.
The PCLT cautioned that possibility would have to be considered on a “case-by-case basis” — but it remains to be seen whether the Vatican will continue emphasizing that possibility — as its statement’s citations did this week — after the expected consecrations in July.
Moreover, diocesan bishops can legislate in their own dioceses to remove any ambiguity about the question.
In the same year the PCLT text was issued, one bishop declared that Catholics who join SSPX chapels can be subject to excommunication, an act which was upheld by the Vatican on appeal, and which remains particular law in the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska.
But the PCLT has emphasized that the moral questions about attending SSPX liturgies are the ones most important for Catholics to consider.
In other words, Catholics might not be declared in schism for attending SSPX liturgies.
But as the group’s communion with the Church becomes ever more fractured, Catholics who want to be obedient to the Church — and avoid even an undeclared-but-still-very-serious excommunication — have to consider seriously their own obligation to maintain ecclesial communion.
