“Lefebvre never set up a separate church or hierarchy…” (p. 19)

But in 2025 there is a parallel SSPX church.

It has its own hierarchy, provinces, seminaries and tribunals. An annulment sought in the SSPX is not referred to a diocesan tribunal but an SSPX tribunal. But SSPX tribunals have no jurisdiction to grant annulments. So the SSPX must see itself as a separate church.

In the SSPX Crisis in the Church podcast, the priest says there is no Sunday Obligation for you if you only have Novus Ordo masses in your area. You should stay home and watch a Tradiational mass online.

“There is no question of us separating ourselves from Rome, … nor of establishing a sort of parallel [church]” (p. 20)

“It is in order to manifest our attachment to the Eternal Rome” (p. 20)

Eternal Rome is who Lefebvre and the SSPX priests pledge loyalty to. The is functional sedevacantism. “We are loyal to past popes but not the present one” is schism.

“Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” – Canon 751

“it is clear that he had no intention to separate himself from Rome which Aquinas said was necessary for a man to commit the sin of schism” (p. 20)

Distinction needed– Aquinas said nothing of what a man intends.

schismatics are those who refused to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the church who acknowledge his Supremacy (p. 20) [Aquinas]

Luther said he did not intend to create a separate church. He intended to launch a reform and renewal movement of the Roman Catholic Church.

“Thus whatever accusations a critic wishes to level against Lefebvre, the accusation of schism or of being a schismastic does not match reality” (p. 20)

Sed contra: Motu proprio of JP2, “Ecclesia Dei”:

Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.

The root of this schismatic act can be discerned…

Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law

Accusing Lefebvre of “schism” or “being schismatic” is the very thing Pope John Paul II three days after the Écône consecrations.

1994 Cardinal Cassidy quote (p. 21)

To the question, “does the Vatican’s Ecumenical relations commission consider the SSPX a separate church”, his answer is great. The SSPX is not so far gone they are in the same category as the Anglicans.

The SSPX schism is so close to being healed, it could be healed and regularized within 30 days. It’s close. This is not a project for the Ecumenical relations commission.

they have now been authoritatively made null and void (p. 22)

Not accurate wording. The four bishops’ excommunications have been remitted. “Null and void” implies something false is now being recognized as having always been false. Benedict XVI did not say that.

I remit the penalty of excommunication…

Are the priests in schism and/or excommunicated?

From Ecclesia Dei

Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.

The schism in context is Lefebvre’s consecrations of 3 days before. “Formal adherence” means I’m unified to the schism in my will and actions. Accepting Holy Orders from one of the excommunicated bishops (like an SSPX priest does) appears to me to be formal adherence.

Practically this means a schismatic group sets up or adheres to its own authorities (p. 22)

I agree. SSPX has it’s own geographic provinces. SSPX sites “the archbishop” as the highest authority along side scripture. SSPX has its own tribunals.

Old Catholics

Argument: saying the Pope’s name is the mass shows SSPX is not in schism. Objection: the Old Catholics say the Pope’s name in the mass too. Answer to objection: well the Old Catholics are heretics and SSPX is not.

Answer: being heretics is not essential to being schismatic.

The point is valid– saying the Pope’s name in your liturgy doesn’t mean submission to the Pope.

excommunication is not sufficient for one to be in schism (p. 23)

Yes. Certainly true. Usually schism and excommunication are unrelated.

Only the proper authority can officially declare or rule that a group or person is in or has created a schism (p. 23)

I agree regarding formal schism. Formal schism has not been declared by the Vatican.

The schism I am referring to is

1. de facto and not de jure
2. From how JP2, Benedict and Francis all have used “schism” or “schismatic” to talk about Lefebvre

“a situation of separation … even if it was not a formal schism” (p. 24)

Yes, I agree. The SSPX is not in formal schism.

The schism at present is a material schism.

Fr. James Martin is a heretic. Is he a formal heretic? No. That would take a public declaration by either his bishop or the Pope. It would involve many private conversations and corrections and be a gradual process culminating with a public call for repentance and then a declaration of heresy.

The Hawaii 6 (p. 25)

In 1991 some parents in Hawaii were excommunicated for inviting SSPX clergy to confirm their children. The families appealed to Rome and Cardinal Ratzinger overturned their excommunications saying that the families “did not perform schismatic acts in the strict sense as they do not constitute the offense of schism”

Kennedy then mis-inteprets Ratzinger:

“If there was a schism to attach to, then clearly the faithing who received sacraments from an SSPX bishiop would have sufficiently attached themselves” (p 25)

Ratzinger says the opposite. He says them getting SSPX clergy confirming is not enough adherence to the schism to get excommunicated. His ruling affirms the schism exists.

According to Aquinas this would suffice for a “major excommunication”… (p. 26)

Here Kennedy argues that everyone receiving communion from an excommunicated and schismatic bishop commits the sin of schism and latae sententiae excommunication.

But the Pope is allowed to be merciful and gentle and lift excommunications for any reason. No one judges the Pope but God. “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven.” A soft-handed approach does not change the next quote from JP2, 1988:

“all those who until now have been linked in various aways to the movement of Archibishop Lefebvre…. should be aware that formal adherence to teh schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”

I have yet to find any message from Rome updating this warning. Pope Francis refers to “the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre” as recently as 2021.

Any Catholic interested/attached to the SSPX should contemplate their eternal soul.

Within a month of JP2’s warning, 12 priests and ~20 seminarians left the SSPX, came to Rome, to avoid “formal adherence to the schism” and be excommunicated.

Ironically this would have made Ratzinger ‘disobedient’ to the Pope…” (p 27)

has his decision overruled even though he followed the Pope’s declaration to the letter (p 27)

… when it [Ecclesia Dei] was put the test, it was found legally insufficient (p 28)

Kennedy paints Cardinal Ratzinger as over-ruling or finding fault in JP2’s Ecclesia Dei motu proprio.

But Ratzinger and JP2 are close allies working side-by-side the whole JP2 pontificate.

If Ratzinger wants to change anything about JP2’s approach to the SSPX, he must become Pope next (2005 - 2013) and we will find out. Anything he leaves in place he ratifies.