Josh Crews

The SSPX is in Communion with Rome

“communion” is a binary term (p. 37)

It is not.

A man who is received into the church is in good standing, but if he never goes to Holy Communion he is not ‘in communion’ because he never received communion. (He is also not excommunicated.) He is neither in communion nor excommunicated.

A man who is Catholic but not been to church in 10 years is not in communion, because they are not receiving communion. But they are also not excommunicated.

Hundreds of millions of Christians (Protestants and Eastern Orthodox) are neither in communion with Rome nor excommunicated.

Hundreds of millions of lapsed Catholics are neither in communion with Rome nor excommunicated. These Catholics are not ‘in communion’ because they have not received communion in over a decade. They don’t come to church. They are also not excommunicated.

I am not disagreeing with his points on “partial-communion is not a thing”.

Archbishop Muller 2014

The canonical excommunication of the bishops for their illegal ordinations was revoked, but a de facto sacramental excommunication remains for their schism; they put themselves out of communion with the Church.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.

…the congregations in the Vatican have said time and time again that Catholics can attend SSPX chapels in good conscience (p. 39)

Pius XI (1920s) hard-stance against visiting Protestant services does not work for a comparison.

  1. The Pope today is more permissive about visiting Protestant services.
  2. Pius XI addresses all Catholics in general, Vatican congregations address personal pastoral inquirers and scope their reply to just them.

A proper comparison would be a modern Pope addressing Catholics in general regarding permissibility of Catholics to visit SSPX chapels.

on that Rome is conflicting in its message on SSPX visitability

Rome is allowed to take a complex position in regards to the SSPX. They may say hard and soft things at the same time. It’s a complex situation. If Rome were to play all hard and declare the SSPX in formal schism that could damage a lot of fragile lay people.

See the Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney. This was/is a 1962 Missal traditionalist priest society that walked in fellowship with the SSPX from before the 1988 consecrations. In 2000 they opened talks with Rome and were reconciled as a whole community in 2001. They get a bishop and are authorized to use the 1962 Missal.

If Rome had gone hard and declared them in formal schism, a whole Catholic community could have been crushed and many souls fallen away from believing in God for good. But Rome mixed hard with soft are won them back as a whole community.

Accept the legitimate authorities of the Church (i.e. the Pope and bishops) (p. 42)

Kennedy’s formula for union with Rome:

  1. Accept the de fide teachings
  2. Administer the same sacraments
  3. Accept the legitimate authorities of the Church (i.e. the Pope and bishops)

The SSPX does not accept the authority of the Pope nor of the bishops of the dioceses were they operate.

We know they do not accept the Pope’s authority because all their clergy are

  1. suspended
  2. do not have a mission from the Pope

Did the SSPX obey the any bishops’ closing of Mass in their diocese in March 2020? I don’t think they even considered it. They didn’t ask permission to offer Mass in the diocese to begin with.

Suspended priests who offer a public ministry are in disobedience to the Pope. Bishops who operate a self-appointed mission without Papal assignment are in disobedience.

2. Administer the same sacraments (p. 42)

It’s not “administering” the same sacraments that makes you in union with Rome. The Orthodox administer the same sacraments.

It’s partaking of the same sacraments.

Baltimore Catechism 2 (1885)

  1. Q. What is the Church?

A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible head.

Partaking of the same sacraments means we receive communion from each other and with each other.

Question for the reader– are the SSPX priests willing to receive communion from the typical Roman Catholic priest/bishop? And reverse, would an SSPX priest ask a Roman Catholic priest/bishop to go to confession regarding modernist errors before offering him communion?

If SSPX priests will not receive communion from “Novus Ordo” clergy, nor allow them to receive communion from them, then that SSPX priest is not in union with Rome.

Bellarmine’s definition (p. 44)

the congregation of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith, and the communion to the same sacraments, under the government of the legitimate shepherds, and chiefly of the one vicar of Christ on Earth, the Roman Pontiff.

Perfect definition. Having the “true faith” alone does not make one Catholic. There are some Anglicans who hold all the Catholic faith. But they do not submit to the Pope’s government.

To belong to the Church is to hold all the de fide doctrines … and to acknowledge the rightful authorities of the Church hierarchy (p. 45)

That was slippery. We just did a definition substitution on an essential matter.

In one page we migrated from

under the government of the legitimate shepherds

to

to acknowledge the rightful authorities of the Church hierarchy

Bishop Strickland is under the government of the Pope. Bishop Fellay acknowledges the Pope’s authority, but is not under it. Bishop Fellay has no assignment, but sets up new churches, puts out a sign “Roman Catholic Church”, baptizes, sets up seminaries. Bishop Fellay is not under the government of the legitimate shepherds. (Bishop Strickland is a bishop in good standing with no assignment, and obeys the Pope’s authority.)

Bellarmine wrote: “It may happen that an excommunicated man retains his baptism, the profession of faith and the subjection to the legitimate prelates, and thus be a friend of God… (p. 47)”

This is a beautiful prescription of how to live after an unjust excommunication– you keep the faith AND STAY IN SUBJECTION TO THE LEGITIMATE PRELATES. It is a life of humility and obedience.

Augustine: “Sometimes, too, divine providence will allow even good men to be expelled from the Christian community through some outbreak of turbulence and discord on the part of the fleshly minded folk. When they show inexhaustible patience in putting up with such an insult or injury for the sake of the peace of the Church and do not undertake any novelties in the way of schism or heresy, they will teach us all with what heartfelt loyalty and genuine charity we should serve God” (p. 47)

Yes. Yes. Yes.

and do not undertake any novelties in the way of schism or heresy

That’s what you should do under excommunication. Suffer patiently and quietly and let God restore you. DO NOT UNDERTAKE AND NOVELTIES IN THE WAY OF SCHISM OR HERESY.