material heresy is an unintentionally erroneous interior disposition. We can all be guilty of material heresy, in so far as we may have misunderstandings… (p. 33)

That is not materially heresy.

Material heresy is not an interior disposition. We don’t use ‘material heretic’ for someone who quietly is confused about the virgin birth.

A material heretic on this point would be someone speaking/writing against the virgin birth or casting doubt upon it who hasn’t yet

1. been declared a formal heretic
2. changed their mind and repented

formal schism is when one makes a positive act of the will to deny the God-given and rightful authority of the Church, Pope or bishop… (p. 34)

That is not formal schism, that is material schism.

Formal schism is that PLUS a declaration of schism by the Pope.

But I heard Cardinal so-and-so say… (p. 35)

Cardinal Burke 2017:

The 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.

If anyone is going say a group is guilty of schism, they should only do so after the proper Church authority… (p. 35)

For formal schism, yes.

You will search in vain to find any relevant statement in which JP2, Benedict or Francis… have said the SSPX is in schism… (p. 35)

1. JP2, 1988, Ecclesia Dei motu proprio

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 in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition.

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 offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.

1. Benedict 2009, on explaining lifting the excommunications

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 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

1. Francis 2021 (Traditiones Custodes accomp. letter)

Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V… the faculty was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the schism with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre.

And Pope Francis has explicitly recognized the faculties of SSPX priests (p. 35)

He did not. He granted faculties. “Recognized” means you had this. “Granted” means you did not have this (until now).

It would be impossible to give true schismatics faculties (p. 36)

It is possible to give schismatic priests faculties. Canon law gives all priests faculties to hear confessions when in danger of death.

This opinion was widespread in the 1990’s and early 2000’s (p. 36)

Very interesting, because nothing has changed about the SSPX’s status since then.

The major events are

1. 2009 lifting the excommunications of the 4 bishops
2. Pope Francis granting absolution faculties to the SSPX priests
3. Pope Francis allowing diocesan bishops to delegate a witness to SSPX marriages

And none of those changed the SSPX status.

There is confusion about so essential an issue as schism as the SSPX… (p. 36)

This is an interesting change of argument. Up until now Kennedy argues they are definitely not in schism. The argument is now swinging to “some authorities say they are, some say they aren’t, so could extend some charity, please? It’s not clear so don’t judge.”

To argue coherently, pick one strategy. Pick either “not in schism” or “there are good points on both sides so let’s say it’s not clear”.

Naval Hero Analogy Check in

After chapter 5 we need to revisit the naval hero analogy, because a key piece is:

the captain and his crew were in the cabin drinking rum and singing pub tunes while passengers were thrust overboard by the violence of the tempest

After arguing that Cardinal Ratzinger has well judged the Hawaii 6 families to not be in schism; and quoting other cardinals that the SSPX in not a separate church, not in schism, not schismatic; we have to pick a side.

For the naval analogy to work, the helm must be abandoned. If JP2 is “drinking rum and singing pub songs” to justify seizing the wheel, what about Cardinal Ratzinger? Is he derelict? And if not, when he becomes Pope, can you justify refusing to turn the wheel back over to him?