Mathathias Maccabeus
I want to thank @On the Contrary, @V.R.S., @Alex A and any others that contributed peacefully and thoughtfully to this discussion from the other side. Would that all conversations could flow as it does from them. Though there were some miscommunications among some (Alex seems to believe I said something I did not), they remained civil.

This is a subject that people on both sides are passion…More
I want to thank @On the Contrary, @V.R.S., @Alex A and any others that contributed peacefully and thoughtfully to this discussion from the other side. Would that all conversations could flow as it does from them. Though there were some miscommunications among some (Alex seems to believe I said something I did not), they remained civil.

This is a subject that people on both sides are passionate about so it is unlikely minds will ultimately be changed, particularly while we are under the current confusion.

There has also been confusion caused on my end by the nature of how this post went, with the comments being scattered and a misunderstanding of one of the rules I set up for a particular commenter.

Regardless, to those I thanked, thank you again.
V.R.S.
If Wojtyla called a real schism the "sister Church" (Slavorum Apostoli) and called a Catholic Archbishop trying to preserve the ancient Roman Rite the "schism", then, definitely the latter case was not a schism. K. Wojtyla - one of worst popes in history had definitely something wrong with his mind.Even if the heart does not tell you, common sense will tell.
We do not need any Francis the Assisi …More
If Wojtyla called a real schism the "sister Church" (Slavorum Apostoli) and called a Catholic Archbishop trying to preserve the ancient Roman Rite the "schism", then, definitely the latter case was not a schism. K. Wojtyla - one of worst popes in history had definitely something wrong with his mind.Even if the heart does not tell you, common sense will tell.
We do not need any Francis the Assisi tradition continuator document to establish it.
On the Contrary
I already commented on another post about this issue, but I'll reiterate and develop a few points here because it's extremely pertinent to this current discussion, and you have to scroll to the very bottom on the other post to find my earlier comment...

The question of whether the SSPX is in schism cannot be resolved by analyzing the document Misericordia et misera alone due to an inherent …More
I already commented on another post about this issue, but I'll reiterate and develop a few points here because it's extremely pertinent to this current discussion, and you have to scroll to the very bottom on the other post to find my earlier comment...

The question of whether the SSPX is in schism cannot be resolved by analyzing the document Misericordia et misera alone due to an inherent contradiction in the document itself. This is why Cardinal Burke, who categorically believes that the SSPX is in schism, stated that Pope Francis’ conferral of jurisdiction upon SSPX priests for confessions and marriages was a canonical anomaly. While I disagree with his overall assessment of the SSPX, he does make a good point: if the SSPX is actually schismatic and outside of communion with the Church, then Pope Francis’ actions are, in fact, a canonical anomaly.

Jurisdiction, or faculties, can be extended to schismatic ministers in certain situations and contexts. For example, if a Catholic driving down a highway in Greece were to get into a horrific car accident and find himself in danger of death, he is permitted to request absolution from an Orthodox priest if no Catholic one is available. The Orthodox priest absolves validly by virtue of supplied jurisdiction, which is extended by the Church for the good of the Catholic’s soul, in accordance with the principle salus animarum suprema lex. However, habitual faculties, which exist on a stable, permanent basis, cannot be extended to schismatics. While a schismatic minister may be temporarily authorized to act in the name of the Church for the spiritual good of one of her members, he cannot habitually act in the name of a Church that he does not belong to. Thus, a schismatic cannot possess ordinary or delegated jurisdiction.

Ordinary jurisdiction is attached eo ipso to an ecclesiastical office, while delegated jurisdiction is granted to a priest by the competent superior (c. 131). Pope Francis has essentially delegated jurisdiction to all SSPX priests directly for confessions, while leaving the faculties for marriage to be delegated by the local ordinaries. This is not something that can be done for schismatics, the temporary application of Ecclesia supplet strictly on a case-by-case basis notwithstanding, because only those in public communion with the Church can hold ecclesiastical office, or be competent to receive faculties from the one who holds such an office. If the SSPX can habitually act in the name of the Church, then its priests must first and foremost be members of the Church.

Cardinal Burke is right: to grant ordinary or delegated jurisdiction to a schismatic is impossible. So either Pope Francis acted illicitly and invalidly, or the SSPX is not in schism, because the delegation of faculties cannot be extended as an olive branch for the restoration of communion, but can only be done after a true communion has already been established. Most likely, Pope Francis is simply using the term "recovery of full communion" sloppily, as he is apt to do; in any case, this particular use of the phrase cannot be taken as anything conclusive in itself as it sets up a contradictory situation, as explained above.

Meanwhile, SSPX priests have celebrated Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica during this papacy, and the Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 2015 officially recognized the SSPX as "a Society of Apostolic Life, with all the benefits that correspond to it," which indicates that it has juridic personality, which presupposes communion with the Church. Given that Cardinal Poli is then-Cardinal Bergoglio’s successor in Buenos Aires, this decision was likely undertaken with the consultation and approval of the Apostolic See. [Side note: there are some contradictory things about that document as well, such as the fact that Cardinal Poli cites canon 298, which deals with associations of the faithful, but simultaneously calls the SSPX a "Society of Apostolic Life," which is addressed in canon 731. Such societies were previously called "societies of common life" under canon 673 of the 1917 Code, a subject I've addressed at length here.]

Further, in Benedict XVI's letter remitting the (doubtful) excommunications, he writes:

"The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council."

Notably, Benedict XVI did not demand that the bishops make reparation for (alleged) damages and scandal caused, which is required before a censure can be lifted (c. 1347.2), and he notes that the bishops acknowledged, in principle, the authority of the pope, which is essentially stating that there is no schism. Given that the views of the bishops about the consecrations did not change at any point before or after 2009, we may conclude that there has never been a schism. Insofar as Benedict XVI "invite[s] the four Bishops...to return," he is referring to doctrinal concerns regarding the Second Vatican Council that still have to be worked out between the Apostolic See and the SSPX. As I'm sure we all agree here, the disputed parts of Vatican II are non-binding, and given that non-SSPX individuals and organizations have expressed similar views and remained in good standing with the Church, we may conclude that the SSPX is likewise in good standing.

Thus, if we read Pope Francis' Misericordia et misera in light of his Predecessor's letter, we come to understand what he probably means by the phrase "recovery of full communion." The most probable explanation is that he was speaking of making an already-existing communion (which the very delegation of faculties must presuppose) more manifest by working through the doctrinal issues mentioned earlier.

The problem is precisely this: people are confused because the Apostolic See, even the popes themselves, have made contradictory statements over the past few decades, which makes it impossible to draw a definitive conclusion about what Rome thinks. Even those who act on behalf of the Apostolic See, which "refers not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia" (c. 361), disagree with each other. Terms such as “not in full communion,” “canonically irregular status,” etc, are often thrown around carelessly, which only adds to the confusion. However, when we actually look at the historical circumstances and analyze them in light of the law, I believe we can reach moral certitude that, at the very least, the SSPX has been treated unjustly. And in keeping with the generous spirit of the Church’s laws, we are not allowed to conclude that schism exists when it has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt in the external forum.

I'll continue to work on the series I've been writing about the SSPX over at the blog; the sections on the events of 1970-76 are already up, while the next part will be on the 1988 consecrations. I think this conversation has given me a few points to consider that I wouldn't have thought about otherwise, but nevertheless, I question the usefulness of continuing this discourse, which on both sides has sometimes fallen short of the standard of charity expected of us as Christians. I enjoy a good intellectual battle as much as the next person, but at the end of the day, we need to remember that a thousand theo-canonical debates, no matter how intellectually sound, won't solve the crisis in the Church; only prayer, sacrifice, and cooperation with the grace of God can do that.
Mathathias Maccabeus
I was just letting @Alex A know I was not saying what they thought I was saying.

This was their quote to me: “ So far, according to your lights, we have Popes Benedict and Francis are wrong when stating by word/or by action, that the SSPX are not 'schismatic'. Then we have Cardinals, Hoy, Cassidy and Ratzinger, stating categorically that the Society and its adherents are notschismatic. …More
I was just letting @Alex A know I was not saying what they thought I was saying.

This was their quote to me: “ So far, according to your lights, we have Popes Benedict and Francis are wrong when stating by word/or by action, that the SSPX are not 'schismatic'. Then we have Cardinals, Hoy, Cassidy and Ratzinger, stating categorically that the Society and its adherents are notschismatic. They three are wrong, again according to your understanding. Do your 'lights' ever entertain the notion that our present times clearly demonstrate the prophetic notion "That right will become wrong, and wrong will become right"? Or perhaps more apt, and to the point;”

I was explaining I was not at all saying they were wrong.
On the Contrary
I'm not sure why you responded to me with that, since I said nothing about the quote from @Alex A at all. I was simply giving a general position on the original subject of your post, which is about Misericordia et misera. This is why I started a new "thread" (so to speak), instead of responding to yours below mine specifically... That being said, the reverse-chronological order of these …More
I'm not sure why you responded to me with that, since I said nothing about the quote from @Alex A at all. I was simply giving a general position on the original subject of your post, which is about Misericordia et misera. This is why I started a new "thread" (so to speak), instead of responding to yours below mine specifically... That being said, the reverse-chronological order of these threads next to the chronological order of comments under each of them can get confusing sometimes.
Mathathias Maccabeus
@Alex A with all the other noise that has happened I’ll make a new thread on this post to address a few points you have made:

“ So far, according to your lights, we have Popes Benedict and Francis are wrong when stating by word/or by action, that the SSPX are not 'schismatic”

Not so. I’ve quoted the popes saying they are not in communion, which means they are in schism. I’ve quoted Pope …More
@Alex A with all the other noise that has happened I’ll make a new thread on this post to address a few points you have made:

“ So far, according to your lights, we have Popes Benedict and Francis are wrong when stating by word/or by action, that the SSPX are not 'schismatic”

Not so. I’ve quoted the popes saying they are not in communion, which means they are in schism. I’ve quoted Pope Francis here, Benedict elsewhere.

I have also quoted Cardinals Muller and Burke.

Here is the quote from Pope Benedict:
“ In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

As we both know, there is only communion or not, so if they aren’t in “full” communion, are they in communion?

“ Ratzinger, stating categorically that the Society and its adherents are notschismatic. ”

Citation? This would be helpful.
Mathathias Maccabeus
@Alex A Also, I hope you don’t take any of this as an attack against you or your faith. As I explained over on Philosopher’s post, I am not even spiritually judging them.
Mathathias Maccabeus
I don’t think I have particularly made a claim about the laity that go to SSPX @michael newman
michael newman
It’s implied. Why are you trying to discredit the SSPX? To prevent faithful attending TLM there? To satisfy intellectual curiosity? To be contrarian? To have communication with people via the medium of
GTV if otherwise you’re isolated in a basement? I don’t know what the motives are. But you’re doing the devil’s work.
Mathathias Maccabeus
It certainly is not implied. That’s the implication you are making, but that’s not what I was implying.

As to the why, because they aren’t in communion with Rome by any official document I have seen, and so it is spiritually dangerous.

I’ll let @Ultraviolet explain why it isn’t the devil’s work, as you claim.
Ultraviolet
"Why are you trying to discredit the SSPX?" michael newman Now that Mathathias Maccabeus answered for his motives. a correction is in order. It was Pope John Paul II who discredited the SSPX. A more trenchant question is why are you shiling for them non-stop?.

" But you’re doing the devil’s work."

So did your mother. :P
michael newman
This is a disgusting comment about my mother even for your standards ultra troll. But as far as I’m aware my mother never met your father.
Sp . .
OK - KEEP Mums out of this conversation......... please,....... u2 UV, it's below classy.........
Sp . .
He must have been confused and drank some of his bath water ...... He's classy, I'm sure he'll issue out an apology.
Mathathias Maccabeus
@michael newman Bro, that comeback was weak 😂
Mathathias Maccabeus
Things I’ve learned today: @Ave Crux is an emotional lying schismatic, and @michael newman sucks at comebacks and is obsessed with @Ultraviolet 😂😂😂
Alex A
I understand that during much of life, friends back each other up. Personally, I would support a friend against most adverse interactions with others as long as such support did not contravene my personal held principles and values. One such value was the 'sacrosanct' of motherhood. Given that this is a widely held principle, perhaps we all should take due care to avoid offense when speaking of …More
I understand that during much of life, friends back each other up. Personally, I would support a friend against most adverse interactions with others as long as such support did not contravene my personal held principles and values. One such value was the 'sacrosanct' of motherhood. Given that this is a widely held principle, perhaps we all should take due care to avoid offense when speaking of another mother.
Mathathias Maccabeus
@Alex A I generally agree. Generally.
michael newman
@Sp . . It’s clear to everyone reading its comment the true nature of ultratroll. It’s cage has been rattled so it’s resorted to attacking my mother (God rest her soul).

@Mathathias Maccabeus I pay more attention to the dog turd I accidentally trample than to your alter ego. You too are a real scum bag on GTV engaging in cyber bullying. I’ve asked don reto nay to clean up the cyber bullying …More
@Sp . . It’s clear to everyone reading its comment the true nature of ultratroll. It’s cage has been rattled so it’s resorted to attacking my mother (God rest her soul).

@Mathathias Maccabeus I pay more attention to the dog turd I accidentally trample than to your alter ego. You too are a real scum bag on GTV engaging in cyber bullying. I’ve asked don reto nay to clean up the cyber bullying here. But he says you keep coming back. This is what happens when you have no life living in a basement. Haranguing others and thinking of comebacks is your only entertainment. If you are Catholic, I suggest going to confession, or indeed speaking to an exorcist.
Mathathias Maccabeus
“ You too are a real scum bag on GTV engaging in cyber bullying.”

Mike, you can’t come in throwing slaps and not expect to get hit back 😂

“ But he says you keep coming back. This is what happens when you have no life living in a basement. ”

He’s probably thinking you are talking about Jimmy. I can’t be “coming back” because I’ve never been banned. I’ve also never been warned or censured.

“ …More
“ You too are a real scum bag on GTV engaging in cyber bullying.”

Mike, you can’t come in throwing slaps and not expect to get hit back 😂

“ But he says you keep coming back. This is what happens when you have no life living in a basement. ”

He’s probably thinking you are talking about Jimmy. I can’t be “coming back” because I’ve never been banned. I’ve also never been warned or censured.

“ Haranguing others and thinking of comebacks is your only entertainment. If you are Catholic, I suggest going to confession, or indeed speaking to an exorcist.”

Says the guy that spends his time making attacks against @Ultraviolet.

Don’t forget your own advice now ;)
“ In general, If you can’t address someone in charity, kindly refrain from commenting on GTV and find a trashy website that suits your needs. Exercise charity here.”

“ De personalising people (even if people have pseudonyms ) is a classic psychopathic ploy.”

“ Really utterly disgusting to see running battles and abuse of one another all throughout GTV”

“ But I’m not a moderator, and it’s not my task to police GTV. If you mind your own self and stop getting into running battles with others and justifying your own crassness then things will automatically improve. GTV will be a different website as a Catholic website ought to. And not tear one another as heathen do. The way people behave towards one another here is worse than on twitter or any other secular worldly website treating Trump. Stop it. Or go somewhere else and peddle your filth.”

Don’t forget l, no one forced you to make an attack against UV. You came here and did that on your own 😂

By the way, I don’t know how things work in the UK, but in the US “Your mom” statements aren’t something people say when they are rattled. It’s something they say off handedly 😂

Notice when Jimmy made a statement he about my mother I didn’t cry about it ;)
Maybe you didn’t, he’s been deleted so many times you wouldn’t even be able to find it 😂
Mathathias Maccabeus
Or… or… maybe Mike, if you don’t want people to “attack you”, don’t go picking fights with them.
michael newman
To psychopaths like you it appears that everyone’s picking fights with you. Get some hobbies. Go out and get some fresh air once in a while. Basement air is not very conducive to good health.
Mathathias Maccabeus
Nah, not everyone is picking fights with me. Just you and like two others @michael newman :)
Sp . .
Is it not the Old Roman way to slug talk, poke each other with Gladius swords, steal positions of power and authority? Panty waists would never exist back then. Frankly this is how the upper ranks still operate today.

@michael newman I personally would not have lowered myself and given a reply after someone slug talked my mother. But if someone were to reply with a Gladius Sword, they would …More
Is it not the Old Roman way to slug talk, poke each other with Gladius swords, steal positions of power and authority? Panty waists would never exist back then. Frankly this is how the upper ranks still operate today.

@michael newman I personally would not have lowered myself and given a reply after someone slug talked my mother. But if someone were to reply with a Gladius Sword, they would say something like, " You mother wears army boots and became intimate with the entire fifth division during WW2"
Mathathias Maccabeus
^ @Sp . . knows what is up.
Sp . .
There are many Novus Ordo priests, Bishops and Cardinals who do not defend the faith. Don't be like them. 🙏
Ultraviolet
"But as far as I’m aware my mother never met your father." @michael newman

If she ever did, I hope the old girl gave my dad a discount. :D
Ultraviolet
"To psychopaths like you it appears that everyone’s picking fights with you. Get some hobbies. Go out and get some fresh air once" From @michael newman who ALSO wrote:

"I have merely expressed my disgust at ANYONE who picks running battles and ad hominem attacks on fellow readers (regardless of what they write, it’s not justified)" ---except when Newman's the one doing it. :D
michael newman
Pope Francis's Statement On SSPX Confessions

Rome has spoken and to avoid any discombobulation, this is the Pope himself (Pope Francis that is - since we have only one Pope at a time) who’s spoken. And called the SSPX mass goers “faithful” (note he doesn’t say unfaithful or schismatic) “for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X”
Mathathias Maccabeus
In that same letter he says the following, “ to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church,”

Showing he does not consider the SSPX to be in communion.
Ave Crux
And that's where you fail to understand the distinction. Pope Francis is not referring to schism -- as is clear from his giving SSPX permission to freely and licitly ordain SSPX Priests and granting them Canonical Faculties.

The Modernists use an amorphous term "Full Communion" to refer to SSPX's unwillingness to sign a Declaration that "....declare[s] in an explicit manner their acceptance …More
And that's where you fail to understand the distinction. Pope Francis is not referring to schism -- as is clear from his giving SSPX permission to freely and licitly ordain SSPX Priests and granting them Canonical Faculties.

The Modernists use an amorphous term "Full Communion" to refer to SSPX's unwillingness to sign a Declaration that "....declare[s] in an explicit manner their acceptance of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and those of the post-conciliar period, by granting to said doctrinal affirmations the degree of adhesion which is due to them." As explained here: WHAT IS ROME ASKING SSPX TO DO?

"Full Communion" is not defined in Canon Law. CITE IT IN CANON LAW IF YOU CAN.
Ave Crux
MM...Would YOU sign that Declaration? Let's see what you're made of.

This document is the only impediment -- placed by Rome -- to the regularization of SSPX. There is no talk of schism -- just compelling SSPX Priests to sign a Modernist document ahdering to all the errors of Vatican II.
Mathathias Maccabeus
It literally says that he hopes to bring them back to communion.

@Ave Crux I don’t know what part of him wanting to bring them into communion doesn’t click to you. If they aren’t in communion, they are in schism.
Mathathias Maccabeus
I know it’s hard with all your emotions and brain washing, but thems the rules.

You might turn off your emotions at some point. 😂
Mathathias Maccabeus
Citation needed, Michael.
Mathathias Maccabeus
Why not put this under the “Rome has Spoken” comment?
Mathathias Maccabeus
That’s my problem. Your comments and replies go wherever you want rather than in a string that is directly tied to what you are discussing.
2 more comments from Mathathias Maccabeus
Mathathias Maccabeus
Can you provide a citation from Rome that concurs with the interview?
Mathathias Maccabeus
Please put the reply in the proper spot.
Ave Crux
Fine -- it's going to be a Post anyway, so no one will be in the dark anymore.
Ave Crux
I actually thought you'd be genuinely happy to know that Rome has given SSPX permission since 2016 to freely ordain their Priests without permission from the local Ordinaries. It's clear they are not in schism. And I hope we can now put that to rest.
Mathathias Maccabeus
@Ave Crux, no offense but On the Contrary and Philosopher have both done better jobs than you have, especially On the Contrary. You haven’t told me anything I didn’t know, but nothing you’ve provided has shown that Rome doesn’t consider them in schism.
Alex A
My response to your assertion, MM, is that you read the provided documentations posted by Ave Crux, with your own pre-bias. Which begs the question, "Are you able to put yourself in another person's shoes"?
Mathathias Maccabeus
@Alex A absolutely. I used to be very pro SSPX, to the point I almost physically fought someone over it.

I think if you read my responses over at Philosopher’s post you’ll get a better idea of where I stand :)

Edited typos Responders to responses
Mathathias Maccabeus
@Alex A I was the first comment so it will be at the bottom.
Alex A
What changed your thinking?
Mathathias Maccabeus
It’s explained over at Philosopher’s post.
Alex A
Sorry, I failed to see the 'rider'. However, I would prefer to get get straight from your good self. Third party, and all that. Or, in the parlance of my native country. "Know what I mean?"
michael newman
If it wasn’t for the SSPX there won’t be any TLM. The SSPX preserved it, and links us to the Mass of the Ages. The devil is furious that it continues. And employ useful idiots who keep attacking the SSPX (and the TLM)
Alex A
You're right on the button when referencing the devil. As my eldest surviving son once remarked, "The devil works both sides of the street." This observation came out of a discussion regarding perceived animosity between SSPX & FFSP.
Mathathias Maccabeus
Still no citation.
Mathathias Maccabeus
I removed one (now two) comments specifically because I gave the rule to post under my comment, which you have ignored. Make your comment in the proper spot. Ave.

And don’t complain. You 1) blocked me for disagreeing with you, and 2) say I don’t answer questions when I literally do. Having you answer under my replies will help guide you so you don’t miss any answers.
Ave Crux
It wasn't in response to anything you said. It was general information. I will repost here because it reflects what Pope Francis actually thinks. THIS IS WHAT I POSTED:

Bishop Fellay gave an interview in 2018 to the Catholic Herald. Read simply the following quote and see if there is any question that there is no animosity at all between SSPX and Pope Francis, and that Pope Francis wants to …More
It wasn't in response to anything you said. It was general information. I will repost here because it reflects what Pope Francis actually thinks. THIS IS WHAT I POSTED:

Bishop Fellay gave an interview in 2018 to the Catholic Herald. Read simply the following quote and see if there is any question that there is no animosity at all between SSPX and Pope Francis, and that Pope Francis wants to help SSPX Priests and their faithful, and does not consider SSPX to be schism:

"But despite his [Pope Francis] “canonising the council”, Bishop Fellay takes a kindly view of the Holy Father. He quotes Francis as saying to him: 'Some people in the Church aren’t happy when I do good to you. I tell them, ‘Listen, I do good to Protestants. I do good to Anglicans. Why shouldn’t I do good to these Catholics?’ He [Pope Francis] read twice the biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, and after that he said to one of our priests, ‘You know, they have treated them badly’.”

Schism.....? It's time to give that up.
Ave Crux
And you should know I didn't block you because you disagree with me. I did so because it turns posts into one long harangue and absolutely turns readers off who just want the information and don't need all the drama and confrontation.
Mathathias Maccabeus
Isn’t that what you are doing right now, @Ave Crux?
Ave Crux
Since your post is addressed to me, it seemed appropriate I respond. If you noticed, my post which you're replying to was addressed to "NEO-CONS"....is there a reason you felt compelled to reply to it with a Post? Are you a Neo-Con? 🤫 However, you're welcome to block me if you don't like posts that turn into one long harangue when I reply.
Mathathias Maccabeus
@Ave Crux I don’t block people who disagree with me.
Mathathias Maccabeus
@Ave Crux Which you clearly consider me you lying twit 😂
Alex A
Clearly, I have missed prior postings that outlined your wish that responses to your comments should be in the appropriate spacing. I can only speak for myself, pointing out that on numerous occasions I have done just that, as a general rule, with other posters only to find that my response[s] ended anywhere else but in order defined.
Sp . .
For Emergency : Catholics permit it , But is it reciprocated? . You better have a Very good relationship with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox if requesting the Last Rites ( Extreme Unction) . Otherwise they will absolutely refuse to do so.
Mathathias Maccabeus
@Ave Crux Did you seriously just say nothing says that not being in communion doesn’t mean you aren’t in schism? Are you a modernist?

Also, as UV has pointed out, Cardinal Burke more recently confirmed what the pope said and said they were in Schism.

And yes, full communion is the only communion state. Which means because they aren’t in “full communion” they aren’t in communion at all.

That …More
@Ave Crux Did you seriously just say nothing says that not being in communion doesn’t mean you aren’t in schism? Are you a modernist?

Also, as UV has pointed out, Cardinal Burke more recently confirmed what the pope said and said they were in Schism.

And yes, full communion is the only communion state. Which means because they aren’t in “full communion” they aren’t in communion at all.

That means they are in schism.
Mathathias Maccabeus
You will find, Ave, that I do not use the term “Partial Communion”. Neither has, to my knowledge, either of those popes in regards to the SSPX.

There is only Full Communion or No Communion. As Pope Benedict said (when he was pope) we must read things in light of tradition.

So when Benedict and Francis both say, “we hope they may come back to full communion”, and we read that through an orthodo…More
You will find, Ave, that I do not use the term “Partial Communion”. Neither has, to my knowledge, either of those popes in regards to the SSPX.

There is only Full Communion or No Communion. As Pope Benedict said (when he was pope) we must read things in light of tradition.

So when Benedict and Francis both say, “we hope they may come back to full communion”, and we read that through an orthodox lenses we see that they are both saying the SSPX are not in communion with Rome.

That means they are in schism.
Mathathias Maccabeus
@Ave Crux Do not start a new comment thread, reply to this one if you are going to reply. (As in reply under this comment specifically)
Ave Crux
There is NO Canonical definition of the term "Full Communion" in Canon Law. Find it, cite it. It doesn't exist.

It is an amorphous term made up by Modernists following Vatican II and has no precise definition; and it's being used to condemn hundreds of dedicated Priests and 600,000 Catholics for being faithful to the Church's Patrimony.

Furthermore, are you aware that the only impediment to …More
There is NO Canonical definition of the term "Full Communion" in Canon Law. Find it, cite it. It doesn't exist.

It is an amorphous term made up by Modernists following Vatican II and has no precise definition; and it's being used to condemn hundreds of dedicated Priests and 600,000 Catholics for being faithful to the Church's Patrimony.

Furthermore, are you aware that the only impediment to full canonical regularization (which is not schism) of the SSPX is the fact the Rome says SSPX must sign a heterodox document containing the erroneous, Modernist doctrines which were foisted on the Church at Vatican II by enemies of Our Lord's teachings?

This is a reprehensible, devious condition, an impediment placed by Rome itself, not SSPX.

Do you want Priests who are willing to sign a document they are convinced violates the unchanging doctrines of the Church and the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ?

Do you?


It is not a matter of Obedience...SSPX fully recognizes the authority of the Pope.

That does not give the Pope or anyone in Rome the right or the authority to deprive SSPX of canonical regularization by forcing them to sign a document on Religious Liberty and other errors they believe have contributed to the "auto-demolition" of the Church.

And aside from the fact the term "lacking Full Communion" is not defined in Canon Law, we know it certainly does not mean SSPX is in "schism".

We know this because Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos repeatedly said SSPX is not in schism, while he was President of the PCED, tasked precisely with overseeing the matter of SSPX, referenced elsewhere.


Have you overlooked my repetition of this fact? The Cardinal uses virtually the same terminology as Pope Francis, and says it does not mean schism.

Clearly, this notion of Full Communion is so nebulous and without any precise definition in Canon Law that no one has been able to nail it down for the last 30+ years, given that everyone says it means something different.

Lastly -- AND PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY as is essental proof Pope Francis does not consider them to be in schism:


IF "not being in Full Communion" means "schism", then it was deadly, useless and perverse for Pope Francis to give SSPX Priests faculties for Confession, since that would mean all the SSPX priests and their 600,000 Catholic Faithful are in unrepentant schism and being unwilling to repent of it, their Confessions would be invalid.

What's more, all of them would commit sacrilege each and every time they went to Confession if they did not repent of such an alleged crime.
Mathathias Maccabeus
Full communion is communion, Ave, are you serious?

“I want you to return to full communion” is the same as “return to communion.”

That literally means that they are not in communion.
Mathathias Maccabeus
And speak for yourself. Cardinal Burke explained it as them not being in communion with Rome.

I’ve literally quoted them explaining that. If you are too stubborn to understand that that is on you.

You are making it nebulous. Faithful and well catechized Catholics know what it means.

I’ve also already addressed in other posts several times the “perverseness of granting them faculties” argument.…More
And speak for yourself. Cardinal Burke explained it as them not being in communion with Rome.

I’ve literally quoted them explaining that. If you are too stubborn to understand that that is on you.

You are making it nebulous. Faithful and well catechized Catholics know what it means.

I’ve also already addressed in other posts several times the “perverseness of granting them faculties” argument. If you want to address it address it there.
Ave Crux
As I suspected, you completely ignored the substance of my response after asking me to make one here. You have no intention of having an honest exchange. It's clear you have no substantive understanding of this matter. I will continue with my posts.
Mathathias Maccabeus
I didn’t ask you to make one here. I said if you are going to respond respond here so it doesn’t clutter it up.
Mathathias Maccabeus
@Ave Crux Rome has spoken. If you don’t like it it’s you not understanding. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t prove I have no understanding. You haven’t shown how I have no understanding.

As I said in another comment on another post, Pope Benedict said they did not have any ministries of faculties. How do you not understand that? What is so difficult about, “no faculties”. Then he …More
@Ave Crux Rome has spoken. If you don’t like it it’s you not understanding. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t prove I have no understanding. You haven’t shown how I have no understanding.

As I said in another comment on another post, Pope Benedict said they did not have any ministries of faculties. How do you not understand that? What is so difficult about, “no faculties”. Then he gave them two, marriage and confession.

After that Pope Francis kept those two, and did not expand them.

That means they can only licitly minister two sacraments.


So I can go to confession and get married with an SSPX priest, but I can not go to mass.

You might check out that link I provided: When is it Okay to Go to an SSPX Mass?
One more comment from Mathathias Maccabeus
Mathathias Maccabeus
@Ave Crux I said to comment here.
Ave Crux
MM - You have insisted over and over that Rome has spoken. I agreed with you, but you appear not to be listening. Here is the latest Post on how Pope Francis is collaborating with SSPX and has given them -- since 2016 -- full freedom to licitly ordain their Priests without permission from the Local Ordinary:
POPE FRANCIS COLLABORATING WITH BISHOP FELLAY
Mathathias Maccabeus
Thank you.

Now, do you have citations from Rome that can collaborate his claim?
Ave Crux
Why not contact SSPX for the letter? To imply that Bishop Fellay would lie in a public video interview about something so gravely important in his relations with Pope Francis and Rome when he is being so completely honest about everything else is pretty sad.
Ave Crux
MM: As explained elsewhere, there is no citation in Canon Law that defines "not being in Full Communion = Schism". Schism has a very precise definition, which cannot be applied to SSPX. How do we know?

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos - who was President of the PCED and was responsible to address the situation with SSPX explained what not being in "Full Communion" is.

From a former Post:
____________…More
MM: As explained elsewhere, there is no citation in Canon Law that defines "not being in Full Communion = Schism". Schism has a very precise definition, which cannot be applied to SSPX. How do we know?

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos - who was President of the PCED and was responsible to address the situation with SSPX explained what not being in "Full Communion" is.

From a former Post:
______________________

As this article states: "Even excommunication is not sufficient for one to be in schism.* ...Only the proper authority can make such a claim; and Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, while president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (the papal-mandated Vatican congregation dealing with the SSPX), made it clear they [SSPX} are not in schism. He did this more than once....

"In fact, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos clarified this three times. In 2005, regarding the 1988 consecrations done without pontifical mandate, he stated that it created a “situation of separation … even if it [the SSPX] was not a formal schism.” (“Rapprochement by unhasty stages, but not too slow either”)

"Again in 2005, that in a 2004 meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Fellay (then Superior General of the SSPX), it was stated, in Castrillón Hoyos words: 'It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. … They are within the Church…' (“They are within the Church”) Then, in 2007, Castrillón Hoyos stated that the SSPX priests and adherents 'are not schismatics'

Full Communion is a Modernist term that never existed before Vatican II, just like the "doctrine" of Religious Liberty that SSPX is being blackmailed with: "Sign this Declaration or you will not be in Full Communion."
________________________

The impasse now has nothing to do with obedience. The impasse is that SSPX will not sign a doctrinal declaration they consider heterodox, and it is this with which they are being blackmailed.

And, as the article I posted explains at length, if SSPX is in schism as you insist, then Faculties for Confession are not only useless, they are deadly and will only mean invalid, sacrilegious Confessions for the sins of schism which you insist SSPX faithful commit without repentance.
Mathathias Maccabeus
At the risk of upsetting the resident British Troll of the Hypocrite Family, When is it Okay to Go to an SSPX Mass?
And
Are They Excommunicated? Sanctions, Part III
Alex A
So far, according to your lights, we have Popes Benedict and Francis are wrong when stating by word/or by action, that the SSPX are not 'schismatic'. Then we have Cardinals, Hoy, Cassidy and Ratzinger, stating categorically that the Society and its adherents are not schismatic. They three are wrong, again according to your understanding. Do your 'lights' ever entertain the notion that our …More
So far, according to your lights, we have Popes Benedict and Francis are wrong when stating by word/or by action, that the SSPX are not 'schismatic'. Then we have Cardinals, Hoy, Cassidy and Ratzinger, stating categorically that the Society and its adherents are not schismatic. They three are wrong, again according to your understanding. Do your 'lights' ever entertain the notion that our present times clearly demonstrate the prophetic notion "That right will become wrong, and wrong will become right"? Or perhaps more apt, and to the point;

"What Catholics once were, we are. If we are wrong, then Catholics through the ages have been wrong.
We are what you once were. We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped. If we are wrong now, you were wrong then. If you were right then, we are right now".


Robert DePiante
Mathathias Maccabeus
@Alex A where do you get that I say pope Francis and Benedict are wrong? I have provided direct quotes from them that say they are not in communion.
Mathathias Maccabeus
I’ve also provided quotes from several other cardinals such as Burke and Muller.
Alex A
@Mathathias Maccabeus They were rhetorical questions. I was also merely pointing out what the named Cardinals and Popes have said, implied, or written, that the Society of Pius X is not in schism. Yet, on other occasions, both Popes Benedict and Francis have confused the issue by stating to the contrary. On a number of levels, it brings to mind the old joke; "How to confuse an Irishman." …More
@Mathathias Maccabeus They were rhetorical questions. I was also merely pointing out what the named Cardinals and Popes have said, implied, or written, that the Society of Pius X is not in schism. Yet, on other occasions, both Popes Benedict and Francis have confused the issue by stating to the contrary. On a number of levels, it brings to mind the old joke; "How to confuse an Irishman." Perhaps for us ordinary mortals, it would be better to move on, for I fear that the divisiveness of the topic will only give rise to an occasion of sin. i.e. lack of charity towards others.
Alex A
Addendum. Ave Crux provided ample material showing that, Cardinals, Ratzinger, Hoy, and Cassidy state that the Society is not in schism.
Mathathias Maccabeus
@Alex A I mean do disrespect, but Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict, and Pope Benedict said they were not in communion, as I quoted.
Alex A
You are now, being somewhat disrespectful. I am fully aware that Cardinal Ratzinger was elected to the chair of St. Peter, and took the title of Benedict XV1. My faculties are fine, thank you. That being said, I used the alternating titles precisely because Ratzinger when Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Stipulated on at least 3 occasions that the Society was not in …More
You are now, being somewhat disrespectful. I am fully aware that Cardinal Ratzinger was elected to the chair of St. Peter, and took the title of Benedict XV1. My faculties are fine, thank you. That being said, I used the alternating titles precisely because Ratzinger when Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Stipulated on at least 3 occasions that the Society was not in schism and that the laity could in good conscience attend the Society's mass. What he stated, when Pope, was far more ambiguous. One can rightly deduce from this that he added to the laity's confusion, as Pope Francis has done also.
On the Contrary
@Alex A I believe it ultimately comes down to two points that our interlocutor needs to consider here:

1. The term “Apostolic See” or “Holy See” throughout the Code of Canon Law doesn’t only refer to the Roman Pontiff, but also “the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia” (c. 361). This means that if someone acts on …More
@Alex A I believe it ultimately comes down to two points that our interlocutor needs to consider here:

1. The term “Apostolic See” or “Holy See” throughout the Code of Canon Law doesn’t only refer to the Roman Pontiff, but also “the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia” (c. 361). This means that if someone acts on behalf of a Pontifical Commission (such as the now-defunct Ecclesia Dei), such acts carry the weight of the Apostolic See. This is why to pick a few ambiguous quotations from a pope (e.g. Pope Francis’ statement on “recovery of full communion” in Misericordia et misera) is not a very helpful endeavor, and at a certain point, it becomes nonsensical to ignore the fuller picture painted by all of these statements and decrees. Overall, Rome’s position on the SSPX appears confusing and contradictory, and in such a case, we must presume that there is no schism in accordance with the generous spirit of the Church’s laws.

2. The statement that a group or organization is “not in full communion”—a term that has no foundation in canonical tradition—does not necessarily refer to a schismatic status. As shown from what Benedict XVI himself said in his letter remitting the “excommunications,” he clearly regarded the recovery of this “full communion” as referring to definitively settling the disputes surrounding the authority of Vatican II:

The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council.”

Clearly, the bishops (and the SSPX as a whole) recognize the authority of the pope in principle, which demonstrates that they were not schismatic; further, since their views remained identical before and after 2009, we must conclude that a schismatic mentality has never existed. Insofar as Benedict XVI “invite[s] the four Bishops...to return,” he is referring to doctrinal concerns regarding Vatican II that still have to be worked out, and as has become exceedingly clear since then, the disputed parts of Vatican II are non-binding in the first place. Thus, the SSPX is essentially in good standing with the Church, even if it still has to resort to some extraordinary solutions (e.g. using supplied jurisdiction for some of the sacraments) as a result of others’ refusal to explicitly recognize this.

Thus, if we read Pope Francis’ Misericordia et misera in light of his Predecessor’s letter, we come to understand that the phrase “recovery of full communion” refers to making an already-existing communion (which the delegation of faculties must presuppose) more manifest by resolving the doctrinal questions mentioned earlier. The term itself is a post-conciliar innovation for sure, but this situation serves to illustrate why laws and decrees cannot be read in a vacuum. For every quote from some authority against the SSPX’s status, one can always find another supporting it, and this applies not only to personally-expressed opinions (e.g. Cardinal Burke saying the SSPX is in schism), but even official statements from the institutes of the Roman Curia, that is, the Apostolic See itself.

In any case, “quoting popes” is an insufficient strategy, and I hope that MM understands this.
Mathathias Maccabeus
From the quote you provided on the excommunications being lifted: “ The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return

My point right now is not to continue arguing the specific that they are in schism. The last like five or six posts I have made have been specifically to say that @Alex A’s statement:
“ So …More
From the quote you provided on the excommunications being lifted: “ The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return

My point right now is not to continue arguing the specific that they are in schism. The last like five or six posts I have made have been specifically to say that @Alex A’s statement:
“ So far, according to your lights, we have Popes Benedict and Francis are wrong when stating by word/or by action, that the SSPX are not 'schismatic'.”

They are saying according to me, Benedict and Francis were wrong. But it’s their statements I’m using. It is actually according to you and Ave that Benedict and Francis is wrong, @On the Contrary, which I can be willing to concede.
Mathathias Maccabeus
Basically I’m not arguing about the SSPX at this moment, I’m arguing about the specific argument I’m making.
On the Contrary
@Mathathias Maccabeus About the citation of "invit[ing] the four Bishops once more to return," I already addressed the meaning of this in the comment that you're responding to:

"Clearly, the bishops (and the SSPX as a whole) recognize the authority of the pope in principle, which demonstrates that they were not schismatic; further, since their views remained identical before and after 2009, …More
@Mathathias Maccabeus About the citation of "invit[ing] the four Bishops once more to return," I already addressed the meaning of this in the comment that you're responding to:

"Clearly, the bishops (and the SSPX as a whole) recognize the authority of the pope in principle, which demonstrates that they were not schismatic; further, since their views remained identical before and after 2009, we must conclude that a schismatic mentality has never existed. Insofar as Benedict XVI “invite[s] the four Bishops...to return,” he is referring to doctrinal concerns regarding Vatican II that still have to be worked out, and as has become exceedingly clear since then, the disputed parts of Vatican II are non-binding in the first place. Thus, the SSPX is essentially in good standing with the Church, even if it still has to resort to some extraordinary solutions (e.g. using supplied jurisdiction for some of the sacraments) as a result of others’ refusal to explicitly recognize this."

As for the specific argument you and Alex were having earlier, I had no part in that. I was simply adding, to his point, that there is no substantial difference between quoting popes and quoting prelates acting on behalf of institutes of the Curia because the term "Apostolic See" is used broadly, according to canon 361. In other words, I was adding to the broader discussion at hand, rather than injecting myself into a specific dispute you and other(s) may have been having earlier. I am only interested in staying on-topic, rather than going along with deflection in the style of "he said/she said."

Since this discussion is no longer about the SSPX, as you say, then I take it that I have sufficiently demonstrated my point that there is no schism, nor lack of communion, seeing as the doctrinal disagreements are inconsequential. As such, I will no longer take part in this discourse.
Alex A
Thank you, once again, for your clarity and conciseness of comment. Even this 'old poster,' has learned much from your contribution to the discussion.