"But isn't an institution a group or network of individuals." @philosopher

Not necessarily. The institution might exist only on paper for tax purposes.

"If all the individuals of a group or network are deemed in good standing…"

…and Benedict didn't do that. Neither did Francis.

JPII in fact, confirmed that all those who "formally adhere" to the schism are also excommunicated.

"If all of the ingredients in the pie are uncontaminated, then the pie is safe to consume."

When one of the ingredients is 100% pure, uncontaminated cyanide, is the SSPX pie still safe to consume? The all-natural Tetrodotoxin sprinkles are a nice touch, too. :P

An institution on paper with no members is only an idea, an abstraction but it's not a real concrete social entity.

No one in the SSPX, (apart from Lefebvre and the 4 bishops he consecrated), the over 600 priests, or lay people have ever been excommunicated by any Pope.

I attend SSPX masses and participate in a diocesan eclesia Dei parish activities in good standing. No priest there or bishop in my diocese has ever said that I was excommunicated or denied me any sacrament, and yes the the diocean priest is aware of it.

"An institution on paper with no members is only an idea, an abstraction but it's not a real concrete social entity."

Not according to law.

"No one in the SSPX, (apart from Lefebvre and the 4 bishops he consecrated), the over 600 priests, or lay people have ever been excommunicated by any Pope."

Wrong. The Pope (JPII) didn't excommunicate Lefebvre and his four flunkies. The excommunicated themselves. More importantly, while confirming this excommunication did occur, JP II also noted the same for Lefebvre's followers: "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

When BXVI lifted the excommunications against the schismatic five, he DID NOT lift it against those sharing "formal adherence to the schism". It's still in effect.

"No priest there or bishop in my diocese has ever said that I was excommunicated or denied me any sacrament..."

That's nice. A lot of priests do the same with Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. Your point? ;-)

"Not according to law" but according to being, existence, and reality.

"Wrong. The Pope (JP II) didn't excommunicate Lefebvre and his four flunkies...Yada Yada, yada."

Equivocation.

Lefebvre was not excommunicated for schism but for disobedience- consecrating a bishop without Papal approval, something JP II had also done in Poland when he was a bishop. Furthermore an opinionated accusation by a Pope accusing some one of schism is not infallible. The beliefs and actions of an individual determines whether or not they are in schism, such as when the majority of English bishops signed Henry VIII's oath of succession and started the Anglican church. Do they reject the true authority of the Pope? Do they start their own church?

The SSPX has not formally adhered to any schism. They do not reject the Pope or his legitimate authority, nor did they start a Lefebvrerian church or church of the SSPX.

"When BXVI lifted the excommunications against the schismatic five..."

First, there were six people involved in the episcopal consecrations of 1988: four priests who were consecrated as bishops, and two consecrating bishops, Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer.

Second, Pope Benedict XVI did not lift excommunications on "the schismatic five," as the two consecrating bishops died in 1991, years before there even was a Pope Benedict XVI.

Third, the case of "the Hawaii Six," which made international news at the time, also in 1991, runs counter to your assertion. "The Hawaii Six" were declared excommunicated "latae sententiae" by the well-known bishop of Honolulu, Ferrario.

The reasons given? They allegedly "adhered to the schism" of the SSPX by setting up a chapel outside the bishop's control and allowed confirmations there by one of the bishops.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the authority of Pope John Paul II, issued a decree in 1993, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, declaring the bishop's decree null and void.

From the cardinal's decree (after specifically citing canon 1364): "This Congregation has examined carefully all the documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner" (my note: attending Mass at an SSPX chapel and receiving sacraments from SSPX priests and bishops, as cited by the bishop) "though blameworthy on various accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism.

"Since Mrs. Morley did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the latae sententiae penalty, it is clear that the decree of the bishop lacks the precondition on which it is founded.

"This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu."

This decree affected the six people involved in this episode. Thus, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the authority of Pope John Paul II, declared that the people involved, who attended Masses of the SSPX, set up a chapel outside the diocesan structure, and received sacraments from SSPX priests and bishops, were not schismatic and were not excommunicated latae sententiae.

It made worldwide news at the time.

hawaii_six_documents.pdf (sspx.org)

"Not according to law" but according to being, existence, and realty. @philosopher

...implying "realty" is exempt from law. :P You probably meant to type "reality" but it doesn't matter. You're still wrong.

"Law is the ultimate science".-Frank Herbert.

"Yada Yada, yada." Equivocation."

Factual correction of a distinction you either don't understand or choose to ignore along with the head of the Catholic Church. I won't speculate which applies, since neither is a credit to you.

"Lefebvre was not excommunicated for schism but for disobedience"

Still wrong. He excommunicated himself.

"Furthermore an opinionated accusation by a Pope accusing some one of schism is not infallible."

...by a Pope speaking as the head of The Catholic Church on a matter of faith and morals. Better double-check those criteria again, bro.

More importantly, even by your erroneous claim, just because he supposedly isn't infallible doesn't mean he was incorrect.

Not being infallible introduces the possibilty of being wrong, it does not show that the pope actually was wrong.

"The beliefs and actions of an individual determines whether or not they are in schism,"

:P ...because what people believe they are proves that's what they are, amirite? In a religious context, that's identical to the argumet used to justify modern transgender ideology. A man is actually a woman because (s)he believes (s)he is and dresses like one.

"The SSPX has not formally adhered to any schism."

JP II defined Lefrebvre's movement as the schism. Those part of it who adhere to it, do just that.

" They do not reject the Pope or his legitimate authority,"

...those aren't the criteria for schism as defined by the Catholic Church as you well know. The SSPX refuses to submit to the Pope and that IS schism. Moreover, it is not for the SSPX to decide what is or isn't the "legitimate" authority of The Pope. Once again, even by your choice of adjective, you demonstrate the very lack of submission which defines schism.

@DJRESQ
"First, there were six people involved in the episcopal consecrations of 1988"

Ecclesia Dei confirmed excommunication against only five by name:
"1.)Mons. Lefebvre and the priests 2.)Bernard Fellay, 3.) Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, 4.)Richard Williamson and 5.)Alfonso de Galarreta,"

"Second, Pope Benedict XVI did not lift excommunications on "the schismatic five," as the two consecrating bishops died in 1991, years before there even was a Pope Benedict XVI."

A close reading of the actual decree contradicts you:. "At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect."

The original decree included Lefebvre. and the second bishop wasn't mentioned in the original decree, so he's irrelevant.

"Third, the case of "the Hawaii Six," which made international news at the time, also in 1991, runs counter to your assertion."

How good of you to hide behind a vague reference to an assertion you won't quote. :P

"The Hawaii Six" were declared excommunicated "latae sententiae" by the well-known bishop of Honolulu, Ferrario."

...because a bishop is the same as the Pope yes?

Also, just as importantly, JPII wasn't declaring Lefebvre et.al to be excommunicated, he was confirming they'd incurred that penalty, i.e. they'd excommunicated themselves.

Regarding the Hawaii Six, CDF overturned the bishop's application of Canon law 1364. The CDF did not overturn the original Canon or the definition of schism set forth in Canon 751.

More importantly the CDF didn't contradict the Pope's application of the term "schism" to Abp. Lefebvre's movement in "Ecclesia Dei", or his admonition that excommunication applies to those who formally adhere to it.

Simply put, DJRESQ, overturning one ruling made by a lower court does not overturn the law itself. It does not change the Pope's original decree, or his clarification that the penalty applies to those who formally adhere to that movement, then or now.

"It made worldwide news at the time."

Yes, you mentioned that before, dear heart. And that doesn't change a blessed thing.

The reason Ecclesia Dei (which is not the relevant document involved here) mentions only the five is because Bishop de Castro Mayer was not a member of the SSPX. He was, however, a co-consecrator.

"A close reading of the actual decree contradicts you:. "At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect."

You're wrong.

Ecclesia Dei is not a "decree"; it is a motu proprio.

The decree referenced in your quote is the decree of excommunication that was issued the previous day and issued by Bernardin Cardinal Gantin on July 1, 1988.

Ecclesia Dei, which is not a decree, was issued July 2, 1988.

"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 Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, and declared by this Congregation on 1 July 1988. At the same time I declare that, as of today's date, the Decree issued at that time no longer has juridical effect."

There were only four bishops whose decree of excommunication were lifted, not five. Archbishop Lefebvre had died years prior to the lifting of the decree (as had Bishop de Castro Mayer), and as Pope John Paul II made clear, publicly, excommunication ends at death.

The above notwithstanding, the fact remains: The Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith stated unequivocally that the Petitioner (and including the other five) were not in schism.

"This Congregation has examined carefully all the documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner, though blameworthy on various accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism.

"Since Mrs. Morley did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the latae sententiae penalty, it is clear that the decree of the bishop lacks the precondition on which it is founded."

Could not be more clear.

You can read the decree of excommunication dated July 1, 1988, which mentions all six bishops, here:

Library : Decree of Excommunication | Catholic Culture

How good of you to hide behind a vague reference to an assertion you won't quote.

Here is the assertion:

When BXVI lifted the excommunications against the schismatic five, he DID NOT lift it against those sharing "formal adherence to the schism". It's still in effect.

The Hawaii Six met/meet your definition of "formal adherence to the schism" and have done so for years. How could they not? They set up an SSPX chapel in Hawaii which has been serviced by SSPX priests for decades. You can't get more "formal adherence" than that.

However, the Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith, with the authority of Pope John Paul II, stated unequivocally that what they have done (attending an SSPX chapel and receiving the sacraments from SSPX priests) does not constitute the crime of schism.

If you assert that the Hawaii Six were in schism, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. The CDF, with the authority of the then-pope, stated otherwise.

"The decree referenced in your quote is the decree of excommunication that was issued the previous day and issued by Bernardin Cardinal Gantin on July 1, 1988.

Ecclesia Dei, which is not a decree, was issued July 2, 1988."

Point conceded. :)

"The above notwithstanding, the fact remains: The Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith stated unequivocally that the Petitioner (and including the other five) were not in schism."

The fact also remains, That ruling has no bearing on Pope John Paul II's express clarification that 1.) Abp. Lefebvre's movement was a schism (and he referred to it as such) and 2.) formal adherence to "the schism" namely Lefebvre's, carries the penalty of excommunication.

When the CDF rules that one person, or six people did not commit schism in one specific instance and under one set of specific circumstances, that does not prove thousands of other SSPX members are not committing schism in other instances and under other circumstances.

Precedent in case law does not overturn the law itself nor does it automatically bind every future case in other jurisdictions. More importantly, this is not a matter for the SSPX to adjudicate on behalf of the Catholic Church.

"If you assert that the Hawaii Six were in schism, the burden is on you to demonstrate that."

Since I haven't done so, no such burden is incurred. Worth remembering I didn't bring up the Hawaii Six. You did. ;-)

"The Hawaii Six met/meet your definition of "formal adherence to the schism" and have done so for years." @DJRESQ

My definition? Would you care to quote my definition? Once you've so please quote the Catholic Church's definition of "formal adherence to the schism". I'll wait.

"You can't get more "formal adherence" than that."

According to whom? That's a matter for The Church to decide, not the SSPX.

Criminals have a bad habit of exempting themselves from the law or deciding their own justifications are legally sufficient grounds to ignore it. ;-)

"When the CDF rules that one person, or six people did not commit schism in one specific instance and under one set of specific circumstances, that does not prove thousands of other SSPX members are not committing schism in other instances and under other circumstances."

You are sidestepping the point that the Hawaii Six were involved in "formal adherence to the schism." Yet the CDF stated that they were not in schism. And the CDF carries the authority of the pope.

In your view, how are the thousands of others who "formally adhere" to the schism different from the Hawaii Six?

If you do a specific thing, X, and you're not in schism, then why would I, who also do that exact same thing, X, be in schism?

The logic fails.

In point of fact, Mrs. Morley, who set up the SSPX chapel in Hawaii, did more than most SSPX adherents. Most people who go to SSPX Masses have never established chapels; they just happen to attend them. Only a handful of people are responsible for actually setting them up.

If she and her other five compadres were not in schism, what makes others, who are in the exact same position as they, to be in schism?

Illogical.

You stated: "When BXVI lifted the excommunications against the schismatic five, he DID NOT lift it against those sharing "formal adherence to the schism". It's still in effect."

Well, that begs the question: Are the Hawaii Six excommunicated? If not, why not? They "formally adhere to the schism."

"You are sidestepping the point that the Hawaii Six were involved in "formal adherence to the schism."

I'm doing nothing of the sort. The CDF overturned the Bishop's ruling, not The Pope's clarification. ;-)

"Yet the CDF stated that they were not in schism."

…as ruled by that Bishop in that instance and that set of circumstancses which is the only instance they were deciding.

"In your view, how are the thousands of others who "formally adhere" to the schism different from the Hawaii Six?"

It is not my place to decide that because 1.) I'm not the CDF.

2.) Neither I nor the CDF has reviewed the individual circumstances, actions, and statements of the thousands of others in the SSPX "formally adhere" to Lefebvre's schism.

"If you do a specific thing, X, and you're not in schism, then why would I, who also do that exact same thing, X, be in schism?"

Given this scenario, because you might also do Y and Z while stating M, N, and O.

Your logic fails because you're trying to legitimize the entire SSPX through a fallacy of composition.

The Hawaii Six is not the entire SSPX.

"Well, that begs the question: Are the Hawaii Six excommunicated?"

…and I repeat. That's a matter for The Church to decide, not the SSPX.

"If not, why not? They "formally adhere to the schism."

…is that The Church's verdict or yours? ;-)

Worth pointing out a defendant can have one conviction overturned and then re-offend.

A criminal doesn't become immune from the law in perpetuity, simply after one successful appeal.

Speaking of "side stepping the point", I'm still waiting for you to quote "my" definition, the one you referenced when you wrote, "The Hawaii Six met/meet your definition of "formal adherence to the schism"

...and since my definition is irrelevant compared to that of The Church, please do cite the Catholic Church's definition of "formal adherence to the schism".

To my knowledge, the Catholic Church has no "definition" of "formal adherence to the schism."

What is the Church's definition in that regard?

Does it include setting up an SSPX chapel, attending Masses offered by SSPX priests, and receiving Confirmation from SSPX bishops?

If the Church has no such definition, what is the problem with a priest belonging to the SSPX or a lay person attending the Masses of the SSPX?

Your definition includes those things; surely you don't deny that. Can a lay person attend an SSPX chapel and not be in schism?

"The Hawaii Six is not the entire SSPX."

Just for clarification, of course the Hawaii Six is (sic) not the entire SSPX. The Hawaii Six are not part of the SSPX at all; they're lay people.

The formal title of the SSPX is Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X. Lay people are not part of the SSPX.

Thank you very much Chat Chartreux. A lot of what you say is true. It's just that I, and I know many others, are so sick of Bergoglio, who I could tell would be a bad and evil pope from the moment he stepped out on St. Peters balcony in 2013. He's confirmed my suspicions of him 1,000 percent. I have friends I Twitter or e-mail with in Italy who say the people in Italy hate him even more that I sound like I do :)

THank you Mathathias Maccabeus- That's good advice. I guess its obvious that I can't stand Pope Francis and his agenda, especially what he did to the TLM. I think I'll follow your advice. reading here and elsewhere about the evil agenda of Bergoglio every day does nothing but make me angry. I always wonder, where are all the supposed good Cardinals--why don't they stand up to him? But the only good thing is that he's old, and does not seem to be doing well health wise. I don't wish people dead, but I think this time next year we will be reading about a new Pope who by some miracle, will be so much better than Francis.