Loading ...
A friend of ours, B.C., left a comment the other day that I thought was very insightful. He had written it under my book review of The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, and I’ve removed it from there to repost it here. His comment builds upon a point that I quote from Fortescue in my review. Fortescue emphasized that in the Novatianist schism, heresy wasn’t the issue; the Novatianists were not heretics. They were mere schismatics; that is, they had split from Rome over an issue of discipline, in which, as it turns out, they had taken a more rigorist line than Rome. In his comment, B.C. also had in mind this recent story about intercommunion between Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.
I’ve been waiting for someone to take up the SSPX issue to no avail, so I’ll take a stab at it. The interesting thing is that according to current ecclesiology, it would seem that a schismatic but non-heretical group would be in the Catholic Church. There seems to be even more latitude than this for being in communion. For instance, an Orthodox bishop received communion recently and intercommunion with the Orthodox is common. This sends the message that it makes no difference to your immortal soul whether you are in full visible communion with the Roman Catholic Church. I am not saying this is what the Church definitively teaches, but that this is the message that is sent by this practice. By this model, the SSPX would be just one group fully within the Catholic Church since they have more claim to be Catholic than the Orthodox.
The puzzling thing is that according to the SSPX’s ecclesiology, which they claim to be the traditional one, any non-heretical but schismatic group would not be part of the Catholic Church. (Of course they deny that they are schismatic, and there are good reasons for this, but I do not mean to discuss this). The SSPX seem to endorse the view of St. Pacian and Optatus of Milevis stated in the quotation in the review. They would certainly condemn the practice of giving communion to the Orthodox.
So according to current orientations in ecclesiology, the SSPX would seem to be in full communion with the Catholic Church. And yet the faithful are generally not encouraged to assist at their Masses, while Orthodox are allowed to receive communion. According to the SSPX’s own ecclesiological orientation, and stipulating the SSPX is schismatic but non-heretial, a traditional Catholic should not assist at their Masses or consider them part of the Church. And yet most traditional Catholics would consider the SSPX’s views on ecclesiology to be correct. Confusing.
I think that the relevant people in Rome have made it abundantly clear that one is allowed to assist at a Mass of the SSPX, but what I haven’t seen - perhaps someone can fill us in on this - is what they say about the reception of communion at a chapel of the SSPX. Or, for that matter, the issue of making a confession at a chapel of the SSPX. When Msgr. Camille Perl, no traditionalist, says that it’s all right to assist at a Mass of the SSPX, how much does he have in mind? Given today’s communion practices, when every man, woman, child, and canis in the pews goes up to receive, perhaps my question has already been (implicitly) answered.
But I don’t mean to distract from B.C.’s main point - it’s a very good one, I think.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
Personally, I don’t see what’s so confusing here. It’s hardly as if the faithful are encouraged to go to Orthodox churches or receive Sacraments there. And going to Orthodox church doesn’t fill a Mass requirement, except perhaps in cases where there is absolutely no other alternative. Similarly, we do seem to be “in communion with” the SSPX in that we certainly think that they validly celebrate the Mass. In that respect at least it certainly seems fine to receive at both SSPX and non-SSPX Masses… the only question would be whether a person is necessarily complicit in schism when they do so, given that they know that the priest has been suspended and that the Mass is illicit. I would not, for that reason, receive at an SSPX Mass (though neither do I receive from the Orthodox) and certainly wouldn’t go to confession since it’s far from clear that a suspended priest even has the faculties to absolve. However, I’ve never heard of SSPXers being warned not to receive at a non-SSPX Mass, which puts them on a level with the Orthodox.
However, it surely is not correct to say that either the Orthodox or the SSPX are “fully” within the Church. There are, to use contemporary-type language, degrees of separation, and schism would certainly count as one kind of separation. It does seem true that the Church is, well, warmer to the Orthodox than to the SSPX. As BC observes, a show is occasionally made of them being in communion (though it certainly seems like an exaggeration to me to say that this is “common.” What high-profile instances can you recall of Catholics receiving from Orthodox? How many other incidents have there been of the reverse?) And the Church doesn’t go around trying to suspend their priests or declare their Sacraments illicit. But surely there are good pragmatic reasons for this. The Orthodox have been established for centuries, the SSPX only for a couple of decades. The former are much more likely to be invincibly ignorant of the wrongness of their schism, but, on the other side, much less likely to be frightened of condemnations from Rome. For the sake of the Orthodox faithful, it might seem prudent to be as permissive as possible in granting the licitness of their Sacraments. The SSPX, on the other hand, are both a dangerous example to others, and also much more likely to be culpable for their adherence to schism. So more harshness seems warranted in their case.
Now, the question of how the SSPX see themselves is more confusing. I won’t attempt to tackle that one.
Definition of terms - Church means a society or group headed by a bishop who has the apostolic succession; schism / schismatic means to deny in principle the primacy or authority of the Bishop of Rome and therefore to be outside the one Church outside of which there is no salvation, the Catholic Church headed by the Bishop of Rome: but nevertheless having the apostolic succession (and valid sacraments, which avail to no graces for schismatics); in communion (with the Church) means inside the one Church; in full communion means in communion; in partial communion means in schism. Stipluating as above that the SSPX is in schism (which stipulation there are sound arguments against), consider Canon 844, no. 2: “Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.” This was decreed in view of the Eastern (Greek, Russian, etc.) “orthodox” who by the way are also formally hereticial. I do not see how it can be argued that it does not apply to the SSPX (granting the stipulation that the SSPX is schismatic), who by the way are not formally heretical; but I suspect someone will try to educate me.