By 
The answer has to do with profoundly different juridical and ecclesial realities.
The Holy Seeʼs declaration this month that formally recognizes the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to be in a state of schism has prompted numerous questions among the faithful. One of the most frequently asked questions is why the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of marriages performed in Orthodox churches while marriages now performed by priests of the Society are considered invalid.
Father Davide Cito, professor of canon law at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, emphasized that the answer has to do with profoundly different juridical and ecclesial realities.
As he explained to ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News, although the Orthodox churches are not in full communion with Rome, they are not currently in a state of formal schism comparable to that of the Society of St. Pius X.
“These are two different situations. The Orthodox are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, but they are not excommunicated. In contrast, the fraternity has committed a formal act of breaking ecclesial communion,” he explained.
The canon lawyer noted that, prior to the recent declaration of schism, the situation of the SSPX was different. Although there were serious doctrinal and disciplinary tensions with Rome, it was not juridically in its current situation.
“The society could perform valid marriages because it was not in a state of formal schism,” he noted.
In fact, during the pontificate of Pope Francis, the Society’s priests received faculties to validly hear confessions and, under certain circumstances, to witness marriages with the authorization of the competent ecclesiastical authority.
However, following the formal declaration of schism, the Vatican has made it clear that those faculties can no longer be exercised.
Specifically, sources in the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) emphasized to ACI Prensa “the invalidity of those two sacraments” (referring to confession and marriage), which Pope Francis had previously granted them permission to administer in 2019 as a gesture of pastoral outreach.
The DDF source went on to confirm that the dicastery’s July 2 explanatory note on the matter “was published with the pope’s approval. The pontiff himself formally warned that this would happen if they ordained bishops in the letter he sent to [SSPX Superior General Father Davide] Pagliarani just hours before the episcopal ordinations took place without a papal mandate. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding his will. That is the decision of the Holy See.”
The DDF, led by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, also clarified that, in declaring the schism, it did not get into considering the SSPXʼs past situation following the lifting of the excommunications by Benedict XVI in 2009 and the concessions subsequently made by Francis. Instead, it focused “on the fact that the new ordinations — a schismatic act — have undoubtedly created a situation of excommunication and schism, and that what they were clearly warned about is now being applied.”
Regarding this point, Cito explained that “a schismatic cannot validly hear confessions or validly witness a marriage, because since the Council of Trent, these sacraments require a canonical faculty or authorization.”
Why are Orthodox sacraments recognized?
Relations between Catholics and the Orthodox underwent a decisive shift during the Second Vatican Council and the pontificate of St. Paul VI. In December 1965, Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I signed a joint declaration lifting the mutual excommunications pronounced in 1054, events traditionally regarded as the beginning of the Great Schism between East and West.
Although that gesture did not restore full communion, it put an end to centuries of mutual condemnations and excommunications and opened a new chapter of ecumenical dialogue.
“We are in communion, though not in full communion,” Cito summarized. “That is why there are areas where it is possible to share sacramental life, something unthinkable in a situation of formal rupture caused by a schism, such as the situation of the fraternity,” he observed.
The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Orthodox sacraments because it maintains that the Eastern churches have preserved apostolic succession and a valid priesthood. For this reason, Cito explained, there is the possibility of a certain “communicatio in sacris” — participation in certain sacraments among the faithful of different churches as provided for by canon law.
“Canon 844 allows Catholics and Orthodox, in certain cases, to receive some sacraments from one another. I myself have seen this in pastoral practice. This is possible because there is authentic sacramental communion, even if it is not full,” he stated.
The expert pointed out that the situation is very different for those affected by excommunication or who knowingly participate in a schismatic group.
Excommunication is a canonical penalty that prohibits the administration and reception of certain sacraments. Schism, on the other hand, entails the rejection of communion with the Church and the authority of the Roman pontiff — in other words, a formal separation from the Catholic Church.
In the case of the Society of St. Pius X, the Holy See considers that there is now a formal rupture of that communion, which entails juridical and sacramental consequences.
“When someone rejects an ecumenical council or denies essential elements of communion with the pope and the college of bishops, the situation becomes very complex from a canonical standpoint,” Cito said.
The professor pointed out that some traditionalist communities that emerged from the SSPX, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), have remained in full communion with Rome and continue to celebrate the traditional liturgy without any difficulty.
“The problem has never been simply the liturgy. The issue touches upon fundamental doctrinal aspects related to the Second Vatican Council and ecclesial communion,” he stated.
How those who leave the SSPX might return to Catholic unity
New regulations issued by the Holy See establish that the faithful and priests who decide to leave the SSPX and return to full communion with the Church will no longer depend on a specific structure like the Ecclesia Dei Commission, created by St. John Paul II in 1988.
Going forward, they may turn directly to diocesan bishops or to the heads of traditionalist institutes that are fully integrated into the Church. The new protocol from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith aims to facilitate this return.
“The procedures for doing so are very simple because, ultimately, these are people who want to be Catholic and desire to be in communion with the Church,” Cito added.
The Vatican document warns that those wishing to fully rejoin the Catholic Church may not continue to regularly attend activities of an institution now considered schismatic.
“The explanatory note from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, attached to the decree of excommunication, is very clear on this point: The sacred ministers administer the sacraments illicitly and, regarding penance and matrimony, also invalidly. Therefore, dioceses and their pastors are urged to be vigilant and to exhort the faithful to remain steadfast in ecclesial communion and not to participate in celebrations or activities promoted by the SSPX,” noted Father Pierpaolo dal Corso, who teaches at the St. Pius X department of penal canon law in Venice, Italy.
This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The Church recognizes Protestant marriages.
Because the validity of the marriage has to do with the intent of the spouses, not the venue.
When I was married it was explained to me that my wife and I were the ones marrying each other, the priest was merely a witness.
Do these Vatican bureaucrats really think this pathetic attempt at gaslighting is persuasive?
Now get rid of the Bishop who wants to get rid of religion, ala John Lennon.
Catholics are required to marry before a Catholic minister with faculties, for the marriage to be valid. Protestants and Orthodox are not bound by Catholic law. The intention of the spouses is necessary, but it isn’t the only necessary thing. Others include freedom to marry, including not being too closely related and not having taken a vow of chastity, and the necessary form being observed.
There are only a few purely ecclesiastical laws that bind laypeople. These include the Mass obligation for every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation, annual Confession of mortal sins and reception of Holy Communion, keeping the fasts, and supporting the material needs of the Church as well as keeping the marriage laws of the Church, including marrying before a Catholic priest. It’s not gaslighting, it’s in the baltimore catechism, and it is grave matter to violate these laws.
Thank you.
“including marrying before a Catholic priest”
Deacons have the authority to witness marriages.
They don’t have the authority to do so in the Eastern Churches.
I’m not a member of the Eastern Church. I can only speak as a Catholic!
Yes. So do bishops, and in certain circumstances, so do deputed laity.
Speaking as a Catholic myself, I’m referring to the Eastern Catholic Churches. Their deacons are not allowed to perform the Mystery of Crowning.
Do you think God really cares? Was the Baltimore Catechism even around when Jesus walked the earth? Or is this all man made by men that don’t have no clue of how it is to be married day in and day out of ones life?
Too many man made rules, Jesus is simple’ love one another as I have loved you”
Calling for the murder of a bishop?
Is that what Catholic Charity is?
Who called for the murder of a bishop?
That might have been on PBS, who was the detective priest who was on Saturday evenings?
It’s got to be Father Brown or Inspector(s) Barnaby from the tv series Midsomer Murders.
Not Willa Cather.
🙂
Generally speaking, only mafia/gangbanger sorts equate “get rid of”, with murder.
You’ve aptly demonstrated your poor cognition in numerous prior posts, but your interpretation of “get rid of the Bishop who wants to get rid of religion” is the ne plus ultra of your body of work.
Even though you don’t deserve the time or crayons for an explanation, I’ll take a chance this qualifies as the corporal work of mercy-instructing the ignorant.
I mean remove his authority, faculties and most importantly his salary. He shouldn’t claim a title or a sinecure from something that shouldn’t exist or else he’s a fraud. I don’t want him dead, I want him living, stripped of his station and impoverished.-and since he wants no religion-barred from religious charitable support. Francis knew how to get rid of Archbishop Vigano, so lets get to it.
I don’t countenance murder, no matter how annoying, obstinate or wrong a person might be-even when they hit the trifecta.
That was my first thought. Those receiving the sacrament of marriage confer it upon each other. Frankly, I am finding this entire matter just…tiresome.
And now you know how the Holy Father feels.
To say the issue is merely tiresome is to be immoderately generous. It’s like the old nonsense about the number of angels on a pin head.
Andy Gump
If laws become so complex that only experts can interpret them, the rule of law is effectively replaced by the rule of lawyers. There is a profound beauty in simplicity and common sense; often, an everyday individual can recognize the core truth of a matter immediately, without the need for intellectual gymnastics.
This same principle applies to our faith. Truth is not an elusive maze meant only for elite scholars. All truth comes from God, and where truth is found, He is there. Its absolute fullness is embodied in the one Lord and Savior of the world, Jesus Christ.
As disciples of Christ, we are called to collectively seek His truth and fullness. Division rarely begins because we are searching for truth; it begins when we stop searching and entrench ourselves in our own camps. If we are truly seeking Him, we must remain open to the ways He reveals Himself across the body of believers. My prayer is that I may always have a heart big enough to recognize and welcome all disciples of Jesus Christ, wherever they may be found.
The Vatican doesn’t seem to know what it believes.
The author fails to note, most importantly, that any Catholic intending to marry an Orthodox Christian, may indeed marry in the Orthodox Church, HOWEVER, the Catholic must first obtain a dispensation to do so.
We encourage the Catholic party to marry in an Orthodox liturgy because Catholic priests lack the intention to celebrate the Sacrament of Matrimony because our theology (since Trent, but only since then) holds that the couple are the ministers of the Sacrament.
Pardon my incredulity, but what’s this meaning? “…Catholic priests lack the intention to celebrate the Sacrament of Matrimony because our theology(…) holds that the couple are the ministers of the Sacrament.”
It seems to say that no Catholic priest celebrates Matrimony since the couple does it themselves.
Does that mean two lovers tonight can celebrate sacramental matrimony without benefit of clergy? Is the cake baked if the two are men?
Think of it as valid form. The requirements for marriage include with a priest or deacon as a witness and conducted in a Church.
Yes. My spouse and I married, non-sacramentally, in the Church garden by a priest, not in Church because he was not Christian, and we needed an episcopal dispensation. Maybe the Church didn’t allow us in the Church? I was told that I could not have a Mass. I wanted a priest, so I got one. The priest wanted the garden, so we had that setting.
Also, I do have a CCC, shredded, with many loose pages out of order, and the online version is cumbersome to use, but perhaps you know offhand: Is pre-marriage preparation necessary or only recommended?
I’m of the opinion that it ought to be strictly required. My FSSP parish priest requires at least 6 months (with varying amounts of time meeting face-to-face with the priest). He also actually recommends the young man meet with the priest prior to proposing to his bride-to-be.
Our church has been 6 months ever since I can remember, but may be exceptions. they used to publish “banns of marriage” I think it was called for 3 weeks prior to the marriage
In extra-ordinary circumstances a priest or deacon can marry a couple sacramentally in almost any location.
Trent does not define the minister(s) of the sacrament of holy matrimony. Check out the Roman Catechism, aka the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It intentionally leaves that section alone, unlike every other sacrament where the Roman Catechism specifies the minister(s) of the sacrament z
Thanks Father. I note that the theology of the Byzantine rite, as I understand it, does not agree that the couple are the ministers of the sacrament. They continue to hold that the priest (representing the bishop) is the minister. of this sacrament, referred to by lovely name “Mystery of Crowning). As the couple joins hands, the priest (minister) places a cloth I forget what it is called, over the joined arms, and places crowns on the head of each.
Perhaps by “our theology” you were referring only to the Latin rite.
Some of what Fr Cito said doesn’t quite make sense to me. Does that mean that prior to the lifting of the mutual excommunications in 1965, Orthodox confessions and marriages were invalid? “When someone rejects an ecumenical council …”? First, if he means the SSPX, as far as I am aware, they reject only those elements that are not irreformable and contradict previous teachings so not VII wholesale. Second, don’t our Orthodox brethren reject everything after Nicaea II? The article does not, in my view, provide any clarity. Perhaps the issue is that clearer and finer distinctions cannot be made in a short interview / article.
Thank you.
If the Orthodox Church(es) call(s) us Roman Catholics schismatics, does it matter that in 1983 a canon in the CIC said otherwise or that in the 1960s Pope Saint Paul VI issued a decree? Isn’t the reality on the ground more real than a decree (or lack of one)?
You are being too charitable. 😉 The goal here appears to be to shame the SSPX and pretend that shaming them is good for the Body of Christ.
They don’t really care what the Vatican thinks, so shaming will be difficult.
The lawyer contradicts himself. If Orthodox matrimony and and confession are valid because of apostolic succession, then so are these sacraments administered by the SSPX. But he knows this is not the case. Orthodox matrimony and confession are ostensibly valid because the Catholic Church allows it to be so, all jurisdiction being derived from the Pope’s.
As for the SSPX, Fernandez’s dicastery doesn’t have the power to overturn the faculties for matrimony and confession confirmed by Pope Francis. Any canon lawyer should know that.
It’s so much simpler, however, to excommunicate everybody and talk about laymen “returning to the Church” through a nonsensical process (would Fernandez explain which points of doctrine we have got “wrong” so we can do the appropriate abjuration? He never will), but even Fernandez has not excommunicated any laymen (or priests).
The first canon in the Latin code of canon law specifically states that it pertains only to the Latin Church. The first in the Eastern Catholic canon specifically says it pertains only to the Eastern CATHOLIC Churches. The Eastern Orthodox Curches are not Catholic.
If they were, they would be bound by the entire code, not just the bit about marriage, and there are numerous canons that they would be violating, including some that carry automatic excommunications, and that pesky one about getting papal approval for episcopal consecrations. They are not in formal schism in the same way Protestants are not in formal heresy – they’ve gotten too far from the authority of the Church, for too many generations, to expect personal responsibility for the fact, so that the Church has decided not to apply that authority anymore. None of their Divine Liturgies fulfill the Sunday obligation for Catholics, because they are not Catholic.
Whether or not SSPX priests who desire it can reconcile seems to depend on the generosity of the bishops, and their willingness to take on trad priests. Perhaps the lack of implementation of TC in various dioceses will be a decent predictor of which bishops might be willing. After all, if you have no diocesan TLMs, where can you put a priest trained only in the TLM? If the bishop is hostile to the TLM traditional practices, why would he take on a trad priest at all? This is why Cardinal Mueller called for an Ecclesia Dei commission. It takes a lot of uncertainty out of the question of whether priests can practically reconcile, and remain in ministry.
This is silly. The term Catholic applies to a host of people, from Latin to various Eastern Church members. So we’d say that a Catholic fulfills his Sunday obligation by worshiping with fellow Catholics at Catholic rites; however, the Orthodox Divine Liturgy does not fulfill the Sunday obligation, yet the SSPX Sunday Mass does fulfill the precept. The Orthodox does not permit non-Orthodox to communion (receive Eucharist) with them without first becoming Orthodox. Yet Rome says we are not in schism with the Orthodox. This mental gymnastics is why the SSPX says that the men in Rome are legitimate but that they are in error and need to return to the old ways.
The Orthodox are in a *state* of schism. It just doesn’t make sense to say they have committed the *sin* of schism, given they were generally born into the Orthodox Church, they did not knowingly choose to separate from Rome. And they cannot be guilty of the *crime* of schism, since they are not Catholic or subject to Catholic law.
When a Catholic commits the sin of schism, it means they have also committed the crime of schism and are in a state of schism.
Non-Catholics are all in a state of schism (generally other things as well) but they cannot commit the crime, and difficult to tell if they know enough to commit the sin.
It is actually advantageous to be subject to the Church’s discipline. A child probably doesn’t like being corrected by his parents, but he is much worse off without it. Those in schism tend to start picking up heresies – the Old Catholics did so rather quickly.
Wow, this is very scary but expected- that some canonists, many bishops, and others are abandoning their craft to support the powers that be. I am a canonist myself and can say these are not matters of interpretation but canonical facts, i.e, in order to declare someone guilty of a crime and punish them, there are either certain indispensable requirements or there are not, such as having a separate process for each individual wherein their culpability is proven and any mitigating factors relative to penalties are considered. Some others have also written/spoken about the many problems with the documents: Fr. Gerald Murray, a spanish site called infovaticana, and rorate caeli.
SSPX confessions and marriages are still presumed valid, as for one, they were given by a direct papal act and would require a express papal action to undo them. There is now an admission that this is required but an attempt to get around it: an unnamed source at the DDF says it was published with the pope’s approval because Leo gave prior mention of the general issue. For one, Leo did not mention the issue of the sacraments and their revocation specifically. Further, it must be done and made known explicitly- it can’t be done by an unknown person verbally claiming the pope is of that mindset! That is the law: art. 7 §2 of the General Regulations of the Roman Curia; Canon 21 of the code of canon law. What also tells you something is wrong is that these persons do not go on record, otherwise we should have Card. Fernandez or someone by name giving a formal statement. This is a prime example of the kind of nonsense taking place here, for any doubters- what kind of legal action is done by having an unnamed staffer tell you that the judge approved something, though you can’t find it, but you just have to trust them. And shame on the “reporter” for taking this as evidence and telling us “the DDF” said so; but this is a confirmation that the goal is maintaining certain narratives. And what does this say about the folks in Rome, that they won’t admit to a mistake and will undertake/continue with illegal actions even when faced with the facts. How hard would it be to issue a simple note saying Leo revokes the faculties, if just to be safe than sorry? This would open the floodgates to the other problems too, of course…
The claim that the sspx would not be like the orthodox is also odd: what matters is not where the sspx was but where they supposedly are, just like it doesn’t matter that the orthodox were once catholic: if the sspx is now said to be a non-catholic entity, the validity of their sacraments does not depend on the granting of faculties; they are valid because of valid holy orders. This would otherwise require a double-standard: the sspx is no longer catholic but somehow catholic/in communion enough that they need faculties from the Church?! There is also the fact that the law provides that the prohibition of administering sacraments and sacramentals is suspended whenever a faithful person requests them for any just cause. John Paul II listed possible causes with respect to the faithful who attend the sspx as desire for reverent worship and sound doctrine.
The sspx at large- all of its clergy and laity who attend- are not excommunicate or in schism, but only the six bishops who actually committed a prohibited act, certainly excommunicated but schismatic is doubtful. The penal decree itself, which is the only document with binding legal force, only warns the clergy of possible future penalties: “Clerics and the lay faithful are warned not to adhere to the schism…lest they would thereby incur excommunication”. Also, blanket penalties cannot be assessed in this way, but they must be ascertained case by case, with a separate canonical process for each. The explanatory note itself even goes on to say this, so there is a contradiction between the documents. Of great help is to compare this with the 1988 excommunications and the decree issued then- only the bishops involved were penalized. It was not just some oversight that the other clergy and laity were not included in anything. At that time, there were competent people in Rome, less ideologically driven.
There is also a difference between penalties incurred latae sententiae- by the very fact of committing an action- but which in order to have any public/juridic effect they must be declared through a process. But this again requires a case by case process and declaration. Canonists also should know better that an explanatory note has no force and cannot declare anything of itself. The article also falsely states that the document warns that those wishing to fully rejoin the Catholic Church may not continue to regularly attend activities of an institution now considered schismatic. This presupposes the laity are already in schism and excommunicate, which they are clearly not, even by the admission of the explanatory note. It seems canon law is continuing to be ignored and used as an ideological weapon, while bishops and others say nothing, especially in america, who are now eager to do popesplaining.
Thank you, this actually makes sense.
If automatic, undeclared excommunications do not remove a priest’s faculties for marriage, because penalties must be declared to apply, and the faculties granted by the Pope have not been rescinded (assuming those were blanket faculties that do not require cooperation with the local ordinary which probably won’t be given at this point), then the SSPX priests are still Catholic priests with faculties for marriages of Catholics.
Same for Confession.
If automatic excommunications did automatically include such penalties, I expect we’d be in a great deal of trouble with bishops and priests who seem to be in full communion but keep saying things that smell like heresy, since that also results in excommunication and removal from office.
One possible quibble: If the entire society had actually been declared excommunicate by the Pope directly, given he has the authority to ditch canonical requirements like trials, then they would not have faculties to perform marriages of SSPX laypeople, who are still presumed to be Catholic and not in schism. They could only validly perform marriages of the laity who were themselves outside the Church. But since the only people actually excommunicated are bishops who have those faculties by ordination?
My question is why aren’t Catholics who condone and promote abortion, the intentional destruction of the life of an innocent beloved son or daughter residing in their mother’s womb and/or condone and promote the engaging in of demeaning sexual acts , that demean the inherent Sanctity and Dignity of all persons , while claiming such acts are justified due to one’s disordered desires/inclination, told that they have ipso facto defected from The Catholic Church. Why are those Catholics who hold fast to Sacred Tradition and The Deposit of Faith told they are schismatic while those Catholics who deny Tradition and The Deposit of Faith considered part of Christ’s Body? Where s God’s Truth in that obvious contradiction? And what about Canon Law regarding the denial of God’s Commandments and thus Divine Law?
One certainly cannot be respecting God’s Divine Will regarding The Sacrament of Marriage and the family while denying Tradition and The Deposit of Faith as a true schismatic.
Procuring abortion carries an automatic excommunication. Any mortal sin (including thise that, like homosexual acts, do not include a canonical penalty) makes it an additional mortal sin to receive Holy Communion. Part of the reason the excommunication is not declared (which prevents the penalty from applying) is that there are an awful lot of laity in the Church, and we’ve never had an Inquisition that gets that invasive.
As to why clergy who repeatedly speak publicly contrary to the Church’s teaching on this matter are not given the choice between publicly recanting and a canonical trial for heresy, I couldn’t say. That is a prudential decision, not a canonical or theological one. It certainly undercuts the effectiveness of Ordinary Magisterium in a big way.
I don’t know whether or not our “Catholic” politicians have ever directly promoted abortion, but they have certainly materially assisted in them through public statements and the direction of public moneys, the passage of laws that offer state protection.
Of all prominent politicians that scandalously, obstinately and persistently promoted abortion, few were relentless as Ted Kennedy, who in addition to that was very likely guilty of vehicular manslaughter (his victim grew up a short drive from where I did and visited my grandmother’s neighbor as a child), left his wife and remarried.
When he died, he had the attendance of Cardinal O’Malley, who was forced to make a pathetic attempt to justify his attendance at Kennedy’s elaborate funeral that basically said Ted was a good Robin Hood, so I note it, but still give him full honors.
Why wasn’t he a “schismatic”? And if he made a good confession at the end, why not give him a quiet funeral instead of a spectacle? I guess consecrating a couple Bishops in a contravention of a convention that was established in 1951 and was set aside a few years ago to please the very same country whose actions required it in the first place is worse that contributing to the mechanized slaughter of millions.
I’m going to preface this with: I am not a canonist.
The canon against procuring abortion must, as all canons, be interpreted strictly and in favor of the accused. If any kind of assistance in abortion were to be counted, then things like failing to boycott companies that give money to pro-abortion groups could be included.
Politicians that support abortion fall more under canon 1371, 1373, 1374, or 1399, which call for just penalties, or 915, which calls for denial of Holy Communion. Bishops have latitude in how they enforce the law, for the good of souls and not for their own comfort, but I agree that it is a scandal how rarely these public sins are publicly addressed by bishops. It undoubtedly contributes to the high percentage of Mass-attending Catholics who think abortion is allowable at particular stages or in particular circumstances.
Schism is the refusal of submission to the Pope, or refusal of communion with those subject to the Pope. This does not refer to any sin whatsoever, or any disobedience whatsoever, or even to particularly bad sins or acts of disobedience. It’s more like rejecting the very idea of obedience being owed to him, or rejecting the idea that one is stuck being associated with others who are also subject to the Pope. This is not the kid that sneaks out every night to party because he is an out-of-control twit, it’s the kid who says, and means, “you aren’t the boss of me”, to his parents, and therefore acts accordingly. Even if his general behavior is good. Denial of the Pope’s authority, or in some cases that he is Pope (less of an issue when this is honest confusion), or attempting to excommunicate him, or setting up other parallel dioceses with jurisdiction, or a combination of these, are the typical ways to do this.
It is often useful to remember that canon law does not judge the soul, nor is its purpose to separate out the goats from the sheep or the weeds from the wheat for punishment. It is there to order the society of the Church. Some of that involves disciplining evil or disorderly acts, but it still does not establish some generally accurate and observable hierarchy of holiness. God looks at the heart, and we can trust Him to bring good out of evil, including the evil of incorrect, overly lax, or overly harsh, applications of the law.
Jorge Bergoglio’s “refusal of submission to the supreme pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him“, was evident, prior to his election to the Papacy, when his heresy was manifested and made public ,in his book, On Heaven And Earth, on page 117, when he stated, in regards to same sex sexual relationships and thus same sex sexual acts, “If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party, nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help shape their identity.”
Jorge Bergoglio defected from The Catholic Church , prior to his election to The Papacy, by denying sin done in “private” relationship is sin, denying The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and thus God’s Divine Will And Divine Law that we respect The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life from the moment of conception, and denying that we, who are Baptized Catholic, are Called to be, “Temples of The Holy Ghost in all our relationships and experiences . (God’s Universal Call To Holiness), Jorge Bergoglio denied The Unity of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, and thus by denying The Divinity Of The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, making it appear as if it is Loving and Merciful to desire that we or our Beloved remain in our sin, and not desire to overcome our sinful inclinations and become transformed by accepting Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy, because he wanted to accommodate sexual immorality in Christ’s Church. If it were true that it is Loving and Merciful that we desire that we or our beloved remain in our sin and not desire to overcome our disordered inclination , and become transformed through Salvational Love, God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy, we would have no need for our only Savior, Jesus The Christ.
Our Call to Holiness is a Call to be chaste in our thoughts, in our words, and in our deeds, and thus be Temples of The Holy Ghost in all our relationships and through all our experiences, and remain Temples of The Holy Ghost as we Abide In The Word Of God Incarnate, Our Savior, Jesus The Christ.
CCC 1849 “Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity.”
Furthermore, every cardinal who was aware that Jorge Bergoglio had defected from The Catholic Church by his manifest heresy and support of sexual immorality in what he defined as “private relationships “ but voted for him to be elected to the Papacy, ipso facto defected from The Catholic Church and their vote is null and void, as is any person who supports this obvious rupture in The Catholic Church that occurred out of the false spirit of Vatican II that was determined to anathema Christ’s Charitable Anathema in order to accommodate unrepentant sin and sinners in Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church Established by Christ for The Salvation of Souls.
“Behold, your Mother.”
The Gates of hell have not prevailed. Our Blessed Mother Is Lifting The Veil exposing the members of the counterfeit schismatic church attempting to subsist within The One Body Of Christ while denying The Unity Of The Holy Ghost and thus The Divinity Of The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, through their desire to accommodate sexual immorality, acts that regardless of the actors or the actor’s desires, are devoid of Love and deny the inherent Sanctity and Dignity of all Human Persons. The end goal of the atheist materialist overpopulation alarmist globalist is the objectification of the human person, which is why they desire to destroy The Catholic Church through the destruction of Marriage and The Family.
“Furthermore, it is alleged that when this “novel” teaching is paired with the Council’s robust affirmation of the importance of ecumenical and inter religious dialogue, you end up with an overall theological ethos of religious relativism and indifferentism.”
This is because in the proper order of things it is God, Family, Country, and “Who do you say that IAm”, is the question that must be answered correctly to live a virtuous Life.
“The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about Marriage and the Family.’ Don’t be afraid, she added, because whoever works for the sanctity of Marriage and the Family will always be fought against and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. Then she concluded: ‘nevertheless, Our Lady has already crushed his head’.”
“Penance, Penance, Penance” At the heart of Liberty Is Christ, “4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”, to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.” “For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.”
“Behold your Mother.” – Christ On The Cross
Dear Blessed Mother Mary, Mediatrix Of All Graces, Mirror of Justice And Destroyer Of All Heresy, Who Through Your Fiat, Affirmed The Filioque, and thus the fact that There Is Only One Son Of God, One Word Of God Made Flesh, One Lamb Of God Who Can Taketh Away The Sins Of The World, Our Only Savior, Jesus The Christ, thus there can only be, One Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Complementary Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Must Proceed From Both The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, In The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity (Filioque), hear our Prayer that your Immaculate Heart Will Triumph soon for the sake of Christ, His Church, all who will come to believe, and all our beloved prodigal sons and daughters, who, hopefully, will return to The One Body Of Christ, which exists From The Father, Through, With, And In His Only Son, Jesus The Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque) Amen.
Dear Blessed Mother Mary, Mother Of God And Mediatrix Of All Graces, we Pray you will Intercede for us, “lead us in our homes in our Nation, and throughout The World, to Him Who Alone Wins The Victory Over Sin And Darkness in us, and unite our hearts to your Immaculate Heart “ , so that your Immaculate Heart Will Triumph.
Love Thee, Notre Dame 🙏✝️💕🌹
Amazon, for instance, was one of the first to jump on covering travel for abortions. I pointed this out to our principal, who then removed the school from their corporate share program, which was prominently displayed in the weekly bulletin.
Trump released several of those that were jailed after being near or in abortion clinics and protesting. The arrests were largely under Biden’s DOJ?
If you say the mother has the “right to choose” then aren’t you authorizing them to turn on the abortion machine and utilize the mighty forceps?
The SSPX do not respect Papal authority. They are not Catholic. It’s not rocket science.
The SSPX is not fooled by the counterfeit magisterium attempting to subsist within The One Body Of Christ while denying The Unity Of The Holy Ghost because they are Faithful to Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and The Teaching Of The True Magisterium, The Deposit Of Faith Christ Has Entrusted To His One Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church for The Salvation of Souls.
ND, if you want to be Faithful to Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and The Teaching Of The True Magisterium, The Deposit Of Faith Christ Has Entrusted To His One Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church for The Salvation of Souls, you need to accept and adhere to Pope Leo’s legitimate authority. To do so otherwise places you outside the Church, which is not a good place to be.
I can state factually that SSPX marriages – long before the dispensation of Pope Francis – have ALWAYS been considered valid. When a couple gets married at an SSPX chapel, they just forward their documentation to Rome and get it rubber-stamped as official. I know of cases where this has happened for SSPX couples faster than for couples first married outside the Church who later wanted to remarry in the Church. This is one of the many “nudge-nudge-wink-wink” arrangements with the SSPX that have been going on for forty years and will continue most assuredly. Another is SSPX priests presiding at funerals where there in no diocesan priest available, which happens all the time in Europe.
My parents had to get their marriage convalidated at their local parish since they were married at an SSPX chapel. Before the 2009 excommunications were lifted, SSPX marriages were invalid.
Unless a couple getting married doesn’t know any better, I believe the “nudge-nudge-wink-wink” arrangements that you seemingly support will come crashing down because most Catholic couples getting married do not want their wedding night tainted by knowing deep down inside that they’re really not married until it’s been convalidated.
To also add, my parents had no idea that their marriage was invalid until at least 8 years later. Once they found out their mistake, they got it convalidated. Some people never find out, but this article draws a clear line in the sand. Marriage is extremely important, and anyone getting married absolutely MUST be sure that the priest (or deacon) is in full communion with Rome, has been granted faculties, and is not not a member of a schismatic sect of clergy or anything else that looks, sounds, and smells Catholic but actually isn’t.
It’s not totally a black and white issue for some of us, that Rome’s managers are in full communion with the gospels. (I’m not a member of the alphabet group you mention.)
It’s a black and white issue with Rome, and for anyone who’s actually serious about marriage. Either do it validly and licitly, or not at all.
The resource person cited, Fr. Cito, may be misinformed: both the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other. So there was an excommunication on the part of the West, which is what is in question here a thousand years later.
Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Partriarchate of Constantinople rescinded the mutual excommunication in the Catholic-Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965.
WOW! After I read the article I was going to post a long comment. But my fellow commenters here have done an outstanding job at addressing the juridical quagmire the Vatican has created here. Read all of them!
An issue discussed here is the validity of Orthodox marriage, penance [no one mentioned the Eucharist] during the interim of the Grand Schism 10054 1965 and mutual Orthodox Latin excommunications.
Would God permit Rome’s excommunication to result in the condemnation of countless Orthodox until Saint Paul VI 1965? A question for canonists is whether the validity of a decree of excommunication infallibly results in eternal condemnation?
Are such decrees infallible pronouncements due to an infallible judgment? If such a decree is to be entirely effective it must be error free. Then on what grounds would it be lifted almost a thousand years later?
Not a canon lawyer, my views are opinion based on justice. It’s apparent that if there are no valid doctrinal errors except disagreement on the supremacy of Roman authority [a variable], that there’s ground for Orthodox sacraments to remain valid whether or not they were illicit during the Schism. Insofar as the SSPX despite the differences in legalities within the Church and the circumstances would the above issue between Orthodox and Catholic have any bearing? Would God’s merciful love supply that validity?
St. Athanasius was excommunicated, and St. Joan of Arc died excommunicate.
Excommunication does not condemn a person to hell, nor is it infallible. It certainly does cause problems with receiving necessary grace from God through the ordinary channels.
I agree with your understanding.
Although, in context Amanda.
“Paragraph 1463 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines excommunication as the most severe ecclesiastical penalty. It is an official restriction imposed for particularly grave sins that blocks a person from receiving the sacraments or exercising specific church acts.
Absolution: Except in the danger of death, absolution from an excommunication can generally only be granted by the Pope, the local bishop, or specifically authorized priests”.
The remainder is as you quote from the CCC.
David – reading the letter written by Pope Leo on June 29th of the illicit consecrations, Pope Leo writes “I urge you to consider carefully the spiritual good of the faithful, because the schismatic act you are about to undertake would deprive them of the licit and, in some cases, even valid reception of the Sacraments, which they love and seek for their sanctification.” This shows the Holy Father is aware of the revocation of previously supplied faculties that will be applied upon excommunication (which he acknowledges will follow after the illict consecrations). Further, it’s been more than a week since the Pope Leo’s DDF issued their acknowledgement of the schism and de facto excommunication along with the loss of faculties – aligning with Pope Leo’s letter.
Also, the Explanatory Note of July 2nd confirming the excommunications is signed by Cardinal Fernandez. When you say, “Further, it must be done and made known explicitly- it can’t be done by an unknown person verbally claiming the pope is of that mindset! That is the law: art. 7 §2 of the General Regulations of the Roman Curia; Canon 21 of the code of canon law. What also tells you something is wrong is that these persons do not go on record, otherwise we should have Card. Fernandez or someone by name giving a formal statement,” what do you mean?
Ecclesiastical law is not made by reading the Pope’s mind, carefully discerning his intent from various comments, letters, and speeches, or by obeying whatever third parties claim he said. Law must be promulgated, publicly, in the correct forum, as law and not as opinion or explanation. That is how Pope Francis granted faculties to the SSPX, and that is how they must be removed, if they are to be removed at all.
The Pope is the Supreme Legislator and has immediate jurisdiction and therefore can unilaterally alter Church law at any time. However, he still must obey the laws of nature that require people to know what law he has made, in order to obey. It’s kind of common sense, similar to how civil law must be on the books to be enforced, and not simply talked about supportively by governor and congressmen.
You can find the referenced canon here: https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib1-cann7-22_en.html
Mr. Kleineck,
To first cut the chase of what would be required: a document with legal force like a decree, issued by Leo or explicitly indicating it was approved by him with a standard formula such as “This decree was approved in an audience with pope Leo.” It must be issued after the consecrations and minimally state something along the lines of “The faculties previously granted by Francis for validly absolving penitents and witnessing of marriages, by all priestly members of the SSPX, are now revoked. These two sacraments as administered by the priestly members are thus considered invalid. This is considered to have effect from the date of this decree.” The document that granted the faculties for marriage- which you can look up- is what it should look like.
So, Leo’s statement that you reference is not a legal act of any kind but merely a letter; it doesn’t mention which sacraments- to strongly presume he means confession & marriage is still to presume; it doesn’t say by what means- there are other ways sacraments could be invalid aside from revocation of faculties; it was made prior to the commission of the consecrations, and thus is conditioned upon a future declaration once the act is actually committed; it doesn’t say when it takes effect- when any given priest of the society finds that out, from the date of the decree, from the date of the consecrations?
The statement from the DDF staff member says Leo approved of the documents, when there is precisely no proof of it- he’s just anonymously, verbally claiming so. It’s a basic, well-known requirement that such approval must be made clearly manifest by using a standard formula mentioned above. The fact this wasn’t done is inexplicable- if Leo did so, why didn’t they just put that in, knowing the ramifications? Why leave any doubt? It’s like Leo wanted to leave his fingerprints off of it by not having his name on the documents. It is also the law that if there is any doubt whether the requirements for revocation have been fulfilled, it can’t be presumed to have occurred. There’s also the fact that the statement about the sacraments appears in the explanatory note, which has no binding force- it is just that, it claims to explain; it can’t impose, decide, or declare anything. Why they thus put it in there vs. the decree is also just odd. Again, just given the law about doubt over revocation, the fact they wouldn’t make it plain is just bizarre. The fact that a week has passed is precisely the scandal- that they are ignoring violations of the law and won’t admit the objectively provable problems, e.g. contradictions between the documents, documents having no legal force, etc. Again, these are not just matters of opinion, e.g., there are separate norms exactly describing the scope and force of an explanatory note or the requirements needed to say something was papally approved.
As to the penalties, there is the contradiction between the decree- which does have legal force- and the note, with the decree indicating a future, conditional possibility of penalties. The note can’t change that. As to the statement about the staff of the DDF remaining anonymous, it’s quite odd why they wouldn’t go on record- monsignor so and so of the DDF said…Why have an anonymous source for such a purported “Clarification?” If you’re trying to dispel criticisms going around, wouldn’t you want to have something more authoritative by at least identifying the person? You’d do that if you weren’t sure of what you were saying or wanted to avoid responsibility/blame, or if Leo didn’t directly approve of them. (The source oddly says leo approved of the documents as the proof but also points to Leo’s prior statements as the proof. When someone also says it’s obvious, they’re going over the top to rationalize)
This article is spot on. My thanks to the publisher and to Mr Olson.
The SSPX sympathizers will try to argue against this piece, but canon law is canon law.
Doesn’t canon law require a trial with evidence?
In this case with the SSPX, they incurred automatic excommunication themselves. No trial was needed, and as far as evidence goes, look at Canon law to see how much they erred.
No trial is needed for automatic excommunication, the question is whether it is required for a declaration of excommunication. From canon 1342, I think not. It is not a sufficiently severe penalty to require that, given how easy it is to lift it. A trial would certainly be required to depose the bishops or to defrock any of the priests.
Your response to my post regarding Fr. Meuli is another failure to prove where Fr. Meuli was wrong, and so you simply took a cheap shot at him (and me for a typo; bravo; I actually corrected it before your cheap shot, but it showed up later than yours; only cheap shot artists point out such things, hoping to score cheap points and pretending to be wise).
You simply cannot refute Fr. Meuli’s superior analysis, and so you attack the man. I still hope that someone will take up the challenge seriously instead of arguing ad hominem against him, and it is obvious that you are not up to the task. Perhaps Amanda or another serious Catholic will give it a shot.
Also note how I specifically asked for someone to actually demonstrate errors they believe are in Fr. Meuli’s analysis; not just claim he was wrong, but just claiming Fr. Meuli was wrong and otherwise trashing him is precisely what you did.
By the bye, some of the terminology in the so-called lifting of the excommunications in 2009 were remarkably similar to what Fr. Meuli uses in his terminology. The good Pope Benedict also did not declare that the penalty of schism was lifted; he declared it null and void…as if it never existed. He likely knew the penalties imposed were bogus, but he would not come out and directly say so; otherwise he would have simply declared them no longer in effect moving forward if they were legitimate; not null and void which is also the kind of terminology used in decrees of nullity to declare a marriage never existed.
QED
Impassioned defense of SSPX; however, what Benedict did can not be taken to absolve everything that SSPX might later do. SSPX now have gone and done something that a) reinstates the original excommunication and schism, that b) voids the purported consecrations, but also c) infuses and immerses their resurgent action, with and in, a morally corrupt essence.
Meuli demonstartes is merely selective in his attentions. Meuli is endorsing a corrupt path that any corrupt or later-corrupted group or individual can imitate. The fact that it is unprecedented doesn’t mean it’s health-filled.
Angelicus
Now you’re attacking me ad hominem by calling me a cheap shot artist. I didn’t attack your character, so you have already lost the debate.
I am a serious Catholic. It is precisely people like you and the SSPX who exhibit a condescending attitude toward Novus Ordo Catholics. The New Mass is valid. Meuli rejected its validity, which is heretical. The SSPX frame it as a grave threat to Catholics, which is misleading and false.
The SSPX brainwashed a part of my family for almost twenty years by their constant saying that the New Mass is a danger.
Remaining in full communion with Rome is a no-brainer. If you or Meuli would disagree with that, then that is not being a serious Catholic.
QED
Meuli was wrong in his avid defense of the schismatic SSPX in two instances: (1) That they weren’t in schism after they incurred automatic excommunication in 1988 following the illicit consecrations. Wrong Meuli. They rejected the Roman Pontiff John Paul II’s authority by disobeying his order to obey the papal mandate. Lefevbre retracted his signature on the Vatican agreement days before the illicit consecrations, which meant he was planning on rejecting the Pope all that time during the negotiations. The excommunications (yes, they really did occur in 1988, no gaslighting) were lifted in 2009 as an act of goodwill by the late Benedict XVI. After all these years, they still couldn’t bring themselves to re-enter union with Rome because to do so would be the same thing as saying that they were in a canonically erroneous position since 1988.
(2) They claimed (twice) that the actions were done out of a state of “grave necessity”. Wrong again, Meuli. Using that as a tool to break the rules is not disobedience in sincerity. There IS sometimes sincerity in disobedient actions, but not in these two cases because their disobedient actions are not being conducted out of sincerity. They’re being conducted as a dead-on-arrival attempt to create a counter church that is focused on rejecting the Pope’s legitimate authority and the validity of the Novus Ordo (something Meuli rejected too). This article disproves Meuli. I really think you might find it interesting.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/grave-necessity-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means&ved=2ahUKEwjLs_6W2dOVAxUEJ0QIHYo-MPAQFnoECBkQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw3N_IKzrsl7j4Dv3iPu_IM0
but the canons go “boom” sometimes, and you’re right back where you started
Speaking of human cannonballs. Has anyone read Steve Skojec’s latest? I don’t know its origin but it was linked in Phil Lawler’s substack:
“Not my circus, not my monkeys, but…pointing out…the principle of non-contradiction…:
If the SSPX holds to what the Church taught BEFORE Vatican II, and Leo says they can’t be accepted because of what Vatican II taught, then there is mutual exclusivity between what Catholicism WAS and what Catholicism IS.
In other words: he is admitting, out loud, that they are different religions.”
NB: On the same substack, Cupich is defining synodality as “the Church learning to dance.” The comments on that serve up a special brand of hilarity.
That reminds of Walter Brennan’s rendition/leading of “Give me some of that old time religion,” in Sergeant York.
And everyone today seems to believe they’re a Canon lawyer.
🙂
I tell people I would have been a lawyer but I could never pass a bar… (get it? a drinker who never attended class)
(that’s a joke, folks)
Good one!
Thank you, knowall. I’ll have to remember that one.
🙂
“A question for canonists is whether the validity of a decree of excommunication infallibly results in eternal condemnation?”
I am not a Canon Lawyer but as a Faithful Catholic know a degree of excommunication does not equate to eternal condemnation.
Christ is The Just Judge, and although we can judge whether or not sin is sin, based on The Deposit of Faith , Christ Has Entrusted To His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, For Our Salvation, Christ Alone can Judge the state of one’s soul. Hopefully, there will be a multitude of persons, who, like The Good Thief, will recognize Christ, in all His Glory, and come late to The Fold, as well as many Prodigal sons and daughters who will return to The One Body Of Christ, outside of which there is no Salvation.
Those excommunicated must repent, and accept God’s Grace And Mercy. This does not change the fact that we should not let our hearts be hardened like a pillar of salt, least we not desire The Baptism of Desire, or to come back to Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost and thus suffet our Just punishment.
The only ones who are all tied in knots about the SSPX excommunication seems to be those WHO ARE NOT THE ONES BEING EXCOMMUNICATED! Has anyone taken notice of that development?
It’s like there’s been a major catastrophe in some city on the East Coast and the only ones fretting about it are those living in a city on the West Coast.
There’s 6 people who were definitely excommunicated. It’s more like a twister in the middle of nowhere that’s talked about more on the East Coast than in the middle of nowhere.
I think there are some laity trying to figure out if SSPX priests still have faculties and what it means to “adhere to their schism” because the SSPX is the only TLM in their vicinity. Also some SSPX sympathizers.
SSPX bishops have already been excommunicated for schism once, they gave no evidence of changing their stance, but the excommunications were lifted and faculties were granted to the priests. Which really makes no sense if they were in schism. Excommunicating them for schism over doing the same thing a second time, when it seems not to have really been schism the first time, doesn’t clarify what constitutes adhering to their schism.
All schism involves disobedience, but the overwhelming majority of disobedience does not involve schism. Most schismatics will openly reject the authority of the Pope. The SSPX openly affirms it. So there’s this ambiguous thing that you absolutely must avoid doing, if you can figure out what it is.
To Amanda et al: I still have not seen anyone definitively prove that the SSPX did not have the right to engage in the consecrations out of necessity that canon law makes clear does not have to be proven to avoid canonical penalties such as excommunication. As the great canon lawyer Fr. Meuli explained back in 2021 in his analysis of what took place in 1988 (with application to today), …
“Canon 1323 states that no one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept, violates it under certain defined circumstances. These circumstances are contained in seven subsections of which subsections 4 and 7 are relevant. Subsection 4 exempts from penalty, one who acted by reason of necessity. In the common estimation of man, necessity arises when there is a crisis. Cardinal Ottaviani speaks of ‘a spiritual crisis without precedent’ (Ottaviani Intervention p.54
TAN). Cardinal Ratzinger states that there is ‘a crisis of faith and of the Church’ (The Ratzinger Report). In his From My Life he writes: ‘I am convinced the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.’ Paul VI on three separate occasions gave expression to his grief at the collapse of the Church. The people who vociferously deny the state of emergency are the very people who brought that state about, the state, to give an example, that sees only 8% of the population of the Pope’s own diocese inside a church of a Sunday. The state, to give another example, that sees in the U.S.A. between 1963 and 1993 Mass attendance plummeting from 71% to 25%, a decline of 65%. That means twenty-four million fewer Catholics in the U.S. attend Mass now than was the case before the Council. Seventy percent (70%) of U.S. Catholics do not believe in the real presence. I mention the USA not to single it out but because the statistics of that country are readily available. Subsection 7 exempts one who through no personal fault thought that there was a necessity. It should be obvious – I hope it is – that subsections 4 and 7 fit the case perfectly. But if somebody is of another opinion and wishes to press the matter give me your argumentation in writing, supported by documentation, and I shall deal with it. …..” (See https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2026/05/a-compelling-defense-of-sspx-by-fr.html)
Fr. Meuli put forth the challenge, and so far as is known, nobody dared oppose him during the remainder of his life of some 18 more years after providing his analysis. Today the same rationale of necessity with even more non-required evidence in support of the rationale than was true in 1988 has been consistently presented by the SSPX over the years, yet people act all high and mighty while basically denying that the SSPX had a right to not only assert what they did per canon law; they also deny that canon law itself makes it clear that the penalty of excommunication would not be applicable.
People may not like what canon law sets forth about acting out of necessity in good faith (again, it does not have to be proven even though plenty of proof exists), but to simply ignore what canon law provides because it’s the SSPX is itself remarkably unjust.
I remain open to anyone who can demonstrate (not just claim) how Fr. Meuli was wrong in his analysis, or that the SSPX was wrong in following canon law as it is; not how people want it to be. Until then, it appears that the greater violators of canon law actually believe that Cardinal Fernandez is to be trusted in his pontifications on canon law despite his obvious errors, including many on display in his incompetent handling of the SSPX situation.
Angelicus
Fr Meuli died in 2019. How could he give an analysis of what happened in 1988 in 2021?
My only challenge to the late Fr Meuli is that fixing a supposed crisis in the Church should never come at the cost of openly rejecting papal authority and willingly entering formal schism. The Church fixes its own issues by being united as One. The SSPX has twice incurred automatic excommunication by consecrating priests to the episcopate without papal approval. Their actions are indefensible, and Meuli’s defense of the SSPX, who have now twice defied Rome’s authority, was an abomination to his priestly collar. I’m very surprised that he wasn’t excommunicated; his views on the validity of the Novus Ordo which he rejected were borderline heretical, if not schismatic.
In 1988 the SSPX claimed it was out of necessity in good faith to protect the Church, but it was actually because they didn’t respect Pope John Paul II’s authority, nor parts of Vatican II. Besides, Lefevbre was getting wrinkles on his face. He didn’t have much time left and he knew it.
In 2009 the excommunications were lifted. They had seventeen years to re-enter full communion with Rome, but they never did because they reject parts of Vatican II, and promulgate false attacks on the Ordinary Form. As a result, they couldn’t bring themselves to re-enter.
Fast-forward to 2026, it’s déjà vu once again. The same hand-wringing reasons; that there’s supposedly a crisis in the Church. The only crisis that existed were two aging SSPX bishops who needed successors before death, just like Lefevbre. It is the Holy Spirit who guides and protects the Church from crises and danger, not a group of illicit, schismatic priests and bishops who reject papal authority, and certainly not a borderline heretic like Fr Meuli.
Correction: Fr. Meuli’s analysis was in 2001, not in 2021.
I understood neither the essay nor the commentary. Too many lawyers involved …
If you want to have your ordinations recognized by Rome without papal permission, just declare yourself to be an atheistic communist. Works for China. And apparently others. Just don’t get carried away with Catholicism.
be a sheep?
From LifeSite News:
“Father Alexander M. Santora, the pastor of Our Lady of Grace Church in Hoboken, New Jersey, who recently celebrated the parish’s ninth annual blasphemous “Pride Mass,” wrote an article reflecting on how his parish has “lifted up” so-called “LGBT Catholics,” encouraging other parishes to follow suit.
In a June 18 op-ed for the Daily Journal headlined “My church lifts up LGBTQ people. Others must,” Fr. Santora, who officially remains in good standing with the Church, recalled celebrating Our Lady of Grace’s June 14 “Pride Mass” with the explicit approval of heterodox Cardinal Joseph Tobin, archbishop of Newark, and how the parish has welcomed numerous parishioners who identify as “LGBT” with their same-sex “partners” as well as many faithful who bring their children along to these “Pride Masses.”
The priest also defended the use of the phrase “pride,” one of the deadly sins, and echoed a recent call by Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe, New Mexico for the Church to “draw closer to LGBTQ people” while sharply criticizing the many faithful who reached out to express their concerns over the sacrilegious Mass.”
Now, will it surprise anyone to learn that the number of Faithful Catholics attending Mass at SSPX chapels will increase?
So when do we hear about his Grinder account?
As for Tobin, we all remember “night, night, baby”.
And the Pope in Rome is Silent.
However, selective indignation, like money, does talk, it screams bloody murder.
Full disclosure: I learned that idea from an Episcopal Minister.
Are Catholics the only ones who have to confess their serious sins to a priest to be forgiven while other religions such as Baptist and Presbyterians as well as our Jewish brethren gain salvation without the need for the Sacrament of Reconciliation?
Bit off-topic, but…
Venial sins can be forgiven by repenting of them and pretty much any good act (bit of prayer or use of a Sacramental or whatnot). This is the same for Protestants and Catholics and Jews.
There are 2 ways mortal sins are forgiven. The easy way is Confession, with either imperfect contrition (sorry because I have offended God and earned just punishment) or perfect contrition (sorry because I offended God and I love Him and want to please Him for His own sake). Eastern Orthodox also have this.
The second way works only so long as Confession is not available, whether due to circumstances or due to being Protestant. If Confession becomes available, we (Catholic and ex-Protestant) *must* make use of it, including for mortal sins already dealt with in this second way. The second way is to have *perfect* contrition. Imperfect contrition is not enough. Not liking the natural consequences of the evil actions is really not enough. It’s important to know about it, since if someone is dying and a priest can’t give them Last Rites, you can pray for this grace and try to guide them to receive it.
But Confession is the ordinary means, required if available (someone with perfect contrition would certainly not refuse it!), and it provides moral certainty that you’ve been forgiven, even for venial sins. Catholics have this great gift from God, difficult in the human sense but spiritually easy and sure. Protestants and Jews have only the unnecessarily difficult and uncertain way.
Frederick, haven’t you heard…
1. There is no such thing as sin
2. Everyone goes to heaven
3. Jesus Christ came to earth because mankind needed a Social Worker
I’ve asked Protestants about “being saved” by Grace then how does subsequent serious sin affect their salvation. The answer seems to be that because they’ve accepted Jesus, who shed His precious blood for them, they’re going to heaven. If anyone understands this better, please chime in.
We probably all agree on the Redemption part but “Once Saved always Saved” varies by denomination.
These days, you’re happy your kid gets married at all. Before any kind of (Christian) religious figure is even better.
Yes,Ma’am. Exactly.
Cleo, this thread would have to be truncated before it could be presented on Greg Gutfeld’s comedy show
Many Catholics still wrongly believe that the Orthodox Church remains separated from the One True Catholic Church because of a few serious disputes over some doctrines, but the Orthodox have adopted as official policy many practices that are extremely immoral, thereby separating themselves further from Catholicism.
For instance, ever since the 10th century, the Orthodox canonized the practice of permitting divorce and remarriage up to 3 times. This makes their teaching on the sanctity of marriage a bad joke on all of Christianity.
In more recent years, the Orthodox have permitted the practice of using artificial birth control in marriages, and this despite that some forms of such birth control can be abortifacient, and so some faithful Orthodox, noting that they can use birth control, likely do use such that are abortifacient which destroy innocent lives.
And speaking of abortion, though the Orthodox remain basically committed to a pro-life stance, they do permit a few immoral exceptions rightly condemned by Catholic teaching.
In point of historical fact, the Orthodox continue to adopt more and more Protestant views that they have canonized into their official teaching. Something the SSPX, warts and all, have never done.