It is reported that an authorized representative” of His Excellency Joseph F. Naumann, Archbishop of Kansas City wrote this:
“While regrettably the Church and the SSPX are not currently in full communion, the Archdiocese does not consider the SSPX to be schismatic.
While canonically one may fulfill one’s obligation to participate at Holy Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation by attending an SSPX Mass, the Masses are not licitly offered by priests possessing the grant of priestly faculties from the Archdiocese. Therefore, participation at SSPX Masses to satisfy one’s Sunday obligation is discouraged.
The Archdiocese does, in support of Pope Francis’ pastoral outlook as expressed in the 2017 letter, grant SSPX priests the faculty to witness marriages when the priests request it. The Archdiocese understands that at this time the SSPX priests in St. Marys request faculties to witness all marriages at The Immaculata.”
Thus, it is now a matter of public record that the Archdiocese of Kansas City (1) “does not consider the SSPX to be schismatic,” (2)affirms that Catholics do “canonically … fulfill” their Sunday and holy day obligation by attending an SSPX Mass (while still discouraging such attendance), and (3) “does … grant SSPX priests the faculty to witness marriages when the priests request it,” which is apparently the norm at present.
Needless to say, these are very encouraging responses for all traditional Catholics, and especially for those who reside in the Archdiocese of Kansas City.
29 comments:
Do they possess faculties to hear confessions?
I wonder if there will be any public cooperation between the SSPX and the Archdiocese.
During the year of Mercy a few years back, Pope Francis gave faculties to all SSPX priests to hear Confessions and any Catholic could go to an SSPX priest for Confession. I think that continues.
"Needless to say, these are very encouraging responses for all traditional Catholics, and especially for those who reside in the Archdiocese of Kansas City."
Again, the misuse of the word "traditional."
I am a traditional Catholic. Fr. ALLAN McDonald is a traditional Catholic.
What the author shoold have said was, "...traditionalist Catholics,..."
Si! But thou art being pedantic.
More like the Vatican is in schism with Church beliefs, tradition and laws.
Father K,
Nice use of Orwell. People who vote for the Party of Moloch are no more a traditional Catholic than those who voted for the Nazis.
Does the announcement in question trump the following from Cardinal Burke?
"[T]he fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Abp. Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff.
"And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that's under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X."
Cardinal Burke also declared: " The Society is not part of the one Roman Catholic Church throughout the world."
=============================================================================
Cardinal Müller said in regard to the SSPX:
"The canonical excommunication of the bishops for their illegal ordinations was revoked, but a de facto sacramental excommunication remains for their schism; they put themselves out of communion with the Church.
"After that we are not closing the door and never will, but we are inviting them to be reconciled.
"But they too must change their attitude, accept the conditions of the Catholic Church, and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion for membership."
====================================================================================
Cardinals Burke, and Müller, have charged the SSPX with the grave sin of schism.
Cardinal Burke also warned that "is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that's under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X."
Should we believe Cardinals Burke, and Müller?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
All of these statements exist on a timeline, IIRC. So the comments by Burke and Müller have been superseded by Pope Francis’ instruction. I also vaguely recall the local bishops had some latitude regarding Confession and witnessing marriage. It looks like AB Naumann is exercising his prerogative.
Is pedantic a negative trait?
While didactic can have a neutral meaning, pedantic is almost always an insult, referring to someone who is annoying for their attention to minor detail, or snobbish expertise in a narrow or boring topic.
(Dictionary)_
Oh boy. The heads over at Church Militant are going to explode over this. 🤯
Were the SSPX anywhere in the near proximity, I would in good conscience attend their Masses.
In regard to certain critics of Pope Francis:
It is interesting that when it involves his positive approach to the SSPX, as compared to the the negative assessments of the SSPX as offered by Cardinals Burke, and Müller...
...that said folks remind us that Pope Francis' authority/declarations in question trump Cardinals Burke, and Müller.
However, in regard, for example, to the dubia, Cardinal Burke trumps Pope Francis.
In regard to their negative assessments of Traditionis custodes, the Synod/Synodal Process, etc., that Cardinals Burke, and Müller, trump Pope Francis.
:-)
Pax.
Mark Thomas
TJM - People, like you, who show by their vote that they support sexually assaulting women have no credibility.
Don't deny it. I'm just using your "logic" to serve you a BIG dose of your brand of "reality."
Fr K is now Father Orwell
Mark Thomas is still N-ts
SSPX Seminary in Virginia broadcasts Mass every day. Usually, weekdays at 7:AM and Sunday at 10:00 AM Eastern time.
Father Orwell,
You voted for Horndog Clintoon who makes Trump look like a saint when it comes to aggressive behavior towards women. Clintoon's victims were all Democrats by the way in case you hadn't figured that out. Tons of assaults on him. Nuff said. Your vote supports the killing of the innocent unborn and the grooming of children beyond peradventure. Enjoy Hell
Father Kavanaugh said..."Again, the misuse of the word "traditional."
"I am a traditional Catholic. Fr. ALLAN McDonald is a traditional Catholic. What the author should have said was, "...traditionalist Catholics,..."
Father Kavanaugh, I appreciate your point. Deo volente.I will use that word, "traditionalist" moving forward. Deo volente.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Pope Benedict XVI, 2010 A.D:
"Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions?"
Mark Thomas,
Displaying your gullibility again. Please explain how a priest is “traditional” when he votes for a Party which demands, and wants you to fund, the killing of the unborn up until the moment of delivery? Where is that taught? God cannot resolve a contradiction but apparently you and Father Orwell can. You both need to go to confession
TJM,
I think the titles could be reversed:
Mark (Papal Ministry of Truth) Orwellian T.
And Fr M "N*TS" Kavanahhh!
Any man, and person over the age of reason who so often makes a mountain out of a molehill - and for anyone to claim to be able to form character profiles and moral character assessments based on one person's contributions to one Catholic blog - and an individual's use of the joke (for many) term "Ginge and Cringe" for what many regard as a joke woke duo...
Is surely at least a little N+TS!!
Don't you think?
Paul,
You have a great point
TJM - You have the most amazing logic... Clinton was a man of low character, therefore your support for the sexual assault of women is acceptable, if not outright justified.
As the Athenians said to St. Paul as they scoffed, "We should like to hear you on this some other time..."
1). We have listened to "Concerned Catholics" for decades who have told us that voting for pro-abortion politicians does not mean that they support abortion, since their "seamless garment" permits them to give moral equivalency to a host of other social issues. If that is what they truly believe, than it is worse than deceitful to accuse someone of "supporting" the sexual assault of women--ESPECIALLY when our current Senile Buffoon-in-Chief can't keep his hands off of young girls, even in the presence of cameras.
2). In 2017 Cardinal Castrillon (former prefect for the Congregation of the Clergy and President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei) told an interviewer with Rome Reports that the SSPX "never entered down the path of heresy." Instead he said, "They had moments when they were away, but technically they never made any complete schism or heresy. For example, they did not create a separate jurisdiction, because to create a jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the Church, that means you want to separate."
Under Cardinal Castrillon's leadership, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei repeatedly averred that Catholics could fulfill their Sunday obligations by attending SSPX Masses, so long as their intent was not to separate from the Catholic Church. I think it's safe to say that most of the people who attend such Masses have no intention of leaving the Church, even though the Church under its current leadership seems determined to leave them.
I like Cardinals Burke and Muller, however, I don't consider them to be infallible, nor do I consider the late Cardinal Castrillon infallible either. There seems to be a great diversity of opinion on this subject. And while not associating Muller or Burke with the group I am about to mention, it seems that the overwhelming majority of SSPX denouncers crying "heretics!" and "schismatics!" come from the effete ranks of career churchmen who follow the political winds of whatever will get them promoted. Castrillon, by contrast, had a certain groundedness and authenticity that most Cardinals today seem to lack--glaringly. For example, he actually disguised himself and got himself into the compound of notorious drug lord Pablo Escobar. He revealed who he was to Escobar and challenged Escobar to make his confession AND ESCOBAR DID CONFESS TO THE CARDINAL.
That took a pair. I don't see that kind of dedication to the Divine Mandate from most of the Heresy Criers who denounce the SSPX. Which begs the question: If the SSPX IS in schism, what Church are they trying to create or join? Every single one of those bishops have insisted that they are committed to the Roman Catholic Church. If they are heretics, what is it that they teach that contradicts the Church?
God is the same yesterday, today and forever. The Kumbaya Church of the New Advent of the Novus Ordo is collapsing under its own absurdity and its executives and sales crew can't admit that the bankruptcy is almost completed.
Jerome - If you have read my posts re: voting, you have never, not once, seen me say anything about the "seamless garment," which, by the way, I do support, nor about giving "moral equivalency to a host of other social issues."
TJM asserts that by casting a vote the voter supports all the candidates positions and beliefs. So, since he voted for Trump, then the sexual harassment/abuse that is part and parcel of Mr. Trump's self-proclaimed M.O. is something TJM supports. Mind you, that's HIS logic, not mine.
Fr K Orwell,
You as a supporter of Bill Clintoon’s approve of his far more egregious conduct towards women. Like the Village Idiot you turn a blind eye to the evil your Party does. There is nothing the Democratic Party offers that benefits anyone other than enriching its leaders who have become very wealthy off of government service. Obama splits his time between 3 mansions far away from “the people.” Name one thing they do that benefits ordinary, hardworking citizens? You throw words like “evil” around when speaking of President Trump who started no new hot wars and whose economic policies improved the lives of working men and women, including minorities. If you want to see evil, I suggest you look in the mirror
TJM - As a supporter of Trump you show your approval for the sexual harassment and assault on women.
You can bring up Bill Clinton, The Teapot Dome Scandal, the XYZ Affair, the sinking of the Titanic, the opening of Pandora's box, the Trojan Horse, and any other event in history, modern or ancient. None of that changes your position.
I find rather odd that the Bishop refers to them not being in full communion but they are not in schism. Such a statement makes no sense because schism only means those who are not in full communion. The Orthodox, and basically all other Christians are not in full communion with Rome, hence they are in schism. Schism is the refusal to submit to the Roman Pontiff or failure to be in communion with those who are in communion with Roman Pontiff.
The SSPX tell their followers to not attend their local parishes or even to attend the Fraternity because they hold heretical teachings. The SSPX accuse the Church of heresy, but if anyone of us faithful followers of the Church accuse them of heresy, all he'll breaks loose to defend that they in no way could be heretical or schismatic. They do have their own tribunals and they argue that they don't need a local bishops approval for faculties, so they in essence through their supplied jurisdiction claim set up an altogether separate jurisdiction.
It is absolutely incredulous to me that this is so hard for many to grasp. As the vatican has said, they who are formally attached are in schism (i.e. the priests and clergy) and that the faithful are not necessarily formally attached, but they subject themselves to schismatic ideas and the possibility of schism. Further, the group rejects the legitimate teachings of an ecumenical council....just like heretics do after every council. For one they accuse Vatican II of teaching conciliarism, but someone with a 4th grade reading level could read lumen gentium ans see that it obviously doesn't teach conciliarism.
The status of the FSSPX is very confusing and what that status is depends on the person you ask. Not in full communion, does not necessarily mean a formal schism. Perhaps that is what is needed, the term “formal” before the word “schism.” St. John Paul II did not declare that Lefebvre was in a formal schism, he simply excommunicated him and the bishops he ordained, but not their priests or laity who had joined.
Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications of the bishops. So what was their status then? Not in full communion but neither in Formal Schism.
Pope Francis, of all popes, gave their bishops and clergy faculties to licitly hear confessions, lift excommunications, etc and allowed anyone to go to one of their clergy for the Sacrament of Penance.
Their status is ambiguous and everyone has their informed and uninformed opinions to include Cardinals Burke and Mueller who tend to say they are in schism. But it is a matter of semantics. Their usage more than likely means not in Full Communion rather than they are in a Formal Schism.
If a group of Catholics with their clergy is in a Formal Schism, I think the pope has to “formally” say so in some kind of anathematizing Bull. Post Vatican II popes are wont to do so.
Father, with all respect I have to disagree with your opinion.
1. The status of the SSPX might appear complex, but it comes down to the fact they have no pastoral mission from the Pope and do not exist as canonical group in the Catholic Church. (i.e. society of apostolic life or personal prelature). They lack canonical status because they cannot be fully integrated into the Catholic Church when they accuse the Church of teaching heresy and promulgating a liturgy which is harmful to souls. (no historical precedent for such an opinion in the Church). Their refusal to submit to the teachings of an ecumenical council and to the profession of faith promulgated by the current popes makes it abundantly clear they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff, thus preventing a canonical status and thus remaining not fully integrated in the Catholic Church. To be not in full communion means the same thing as not being united, in other words something is impeding their unity. Schism simply means a lack of unity. Canon 751 says "schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." As you pointed out they lack full communion, and the definition of schism actually refers to those who lack full communion. The Canon doesn't make any requirement about formal or informal. It simply leaves it to the principle, lack of submission and lack of communion with the Church. That's what is required for schism. The SSPX in fact on their website love to hold up how much they reject from the Catholic Church and that they are able to act independently (supplied jurisdiction which the Church does not accept in their case) of the Roman Pontiff and that they are waiting for a pope to come that will restore the Church to their ideals. They have made it pretty easy to see that they formally set themselves up as their own authority.
2. Ecclesia dei does refer to bishop lefebvre as committing a schismatic act, one so grave that it merited excommunication. JP II says, "3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.
4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition" and further he says "c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."
JPII clearly refers to them as in schism and that all who are associated with SSPX should "cease their support in any way for that movement." The need for a papal bull that you make appeal to in fact exists! JPII was very clear.
3. The status of the SSPX after the lifting of the excommunications was clearly laid down by Benedict XVI in his letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church where he states that nothing has changed regarding the status of the SSPX. Their status before was of irregular canonical status and that was the same afterwards. Again, irregular status as was seen earlier means a lack of unity and a lack of unity means schism. Here is what Pope Benedict said "The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. 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. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."
Benedict is clear, the remission of the excommunications had the same aim as the excommunications, namely to call them back to the Church and that the SSPX still lack communion with the Church the same as before. Therefore, they were in schism before as Pope JP II clearly stated in his Ecclesia Dei and Benedict makes clear that they are not united to the Church in a formal way. They are connected to the Church like other Christian communities through their possession of sacramental power, but don't have any status in the Church.
4. Pope Francis granting them faculties also is quite clear in his reasons and their status. He says in Misericordia that he is granting them faculties for the sake of the faithful following them and in a spirit of trying to call them back to full communion (out of schism). Pope Francis says, "For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins.[15] For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon." Ecclesia dei Commisions states clearly the status of the SSPX as being not in communion (i.e. in schism) when the facilities to witness marriages "may" be granted by local ordinary. This again is clearly stated for the benefit of the followers so that they can be assured of marital validity and as a means to bring the SSPX into full communion. If they are not in full communion, then they are separated from the Catholic Church. (schism) Ecc. Dei says, "Following the same pastoral outlook which seeks to reassure the conscience of the faithful, despite the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St. Pius X finds itself, the Holy Father, following a proposal by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has decided to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society, according to the following provisions." Again, it is clear that this is for the benefit of those who follow the SSPX and to help foster their reunion with the Catholic Church. It is also clear that this does not change the canonical status and irregularity that the SSPX find themselves in since the time they were suspended a divinis in 1975 by Pope Paul VI.
5. Regarding the ability to fulfill Sunday obligation, it is true that PCED has issued apparent conflicting statements. However, from what is clearly established above, one can only fulfil the sunday obligation by attending lawful liturgies celebrated by priests with faculties to do so. Only in extreme cases can one attend the liturgy of a schismatic group with valid sacraments such as the orthodox. Saint John Paul II was clear that all the followers should cease to support in anyway the SSPX and return to Catholic Parishes or societies in union with Rome. The fact established by JP II on their separation from the Catholic Church was never questioned or changed by his successors as they have always referred to the fact that the SSPX are not in full communion (i.e. in schism). The safe default is that one should not attend their Masses or attend their sacraments especially to fulfill the Holy Day obligation. However, it seems rather logically obvious from what has been said above in points 1 and 2 that one should not attend SSPX functions since they are schismatic and deny the authentic teachings of Ecumenical Councils and Papal Magisteriums.
Post a Comment