Fr Zed tackles the thorny question of what is 'schism' and how one falls into it. Does one 'schismatic act' constitute being in schism?
From Fr Z's Blog
From a reader…
Thank you for all of your wonderful, and sometimes saddening articles. They are truly a joy and blessing to read. They have helped me to educated myself in my faith better as well.
I was wondering, many times, I have heard that “a schismatic act (such as the illicit consecrations of the SSPX bishops in 1988) does not constitute full schism.” I have tried to research this, but I cannot find anything that is not written by sedevancantists, which I don’t trust to read. Therefore, assuming that the statement is true, what does an order/group/individual have to do to be in “full” schism. Can a person commit a schismatic act and not be in this “full” schism? Is there such a thing as partial schism, and should it be avoided like full schismatics (such as the orthodox?)?
If you are able to answer my questions, I would greatly appreciate it. I have a large group of friends who are also wondering. We would all appreciate understanding this topic a little better.
Once again, the problem with latae sententiae penalties.
It is hard to “understand this a little better”. It is a question that will involve real experts and lots of research and thought and then a Lawgiver to bring clarity. Hence, a little understanding can be a dangerous thing.
Bluntly, you are either in schism or you aren’t. There is no partial schism. Unfortunately, the situation is murky because people who have committed schismatic acts have not been declared to have done so by competent authority. There is a new Book VI, about penal law, in the Code now, which helps, but it doesn’t resolve the “murk” in this case. Hence, whatever penalties there may be for schism, most of the time they are just floating out there, like dandelion seeds waiting to land. Or, as one of my canonist friends put it:
So, what we take away from this is that people or groups can only be viewed as truly being apostates or heretics or schismatics when the competent authority of the Church declares them to be.
Therefore, with the greatest care for what preceded, an isolated act might be a schismatic act, but it really take more than that to create a true schism. Time has to pass. Consequences observed and weighed over time. Verification of other acts of schism should be undertaken: a one-off is one thing, but more acts are another.
There are events in the Church that can be understood only in retrospect. An example in the history of the Church is when Card. Humbert placed a Bull of Excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia on 16 July 1054. Only much later was that moment taken to be break between the Latin and Eastern Churches. It took time to assess the event and subsequent consequences. Moreover, the mutual excommunications were lifted by Paul VI and Athenagoras nine centuries later.
John Paul II stated clearly in the 1988 Ecclesia Dei adflicta that Archbp. Lefevbre, because of the act of disobedience he made publicly in consecrating bishops without the needed mandate, committed a “schismatic act”. He was declared by the Congregation for Bishops to have been excommunicated for the consecration and for schism. Reasonably, one can understand the penalty for the consecration (though some argue that because he sensed himself to be compelled, he didn’t incur the penalty) but it is hard to justify the penalty for schism, because one act of schism hardly establishes a true schism.
The subsequent history of the SSPX after the consecrations in 1988 – seen fairly – shows that it was not their intention to start a new Church or to be schismatic. Moreover, the priests of the SSPX have faculties to receive sacramental confessions. So how does that work?
Moreover, if the faithful are admonished not to adhere to schism, it is hard to understand what adherence to schism means. If the SSPX is truly a schism – and it is NOT – when does one “adhere”? How? Especially for lay people who do not seek orders from the SSPX or employment. By going to an SSPX chapel? Once? 100 times? By giving money? Once? A little? A lot? Murky.
People who leap to opine in the worst way about the SSPX should engage in prayers for the unity of the Church. They should remember that the SSPX’s status has had interesting developments since 1988. They might also include the Psalm 130:1) Lord, my heart is not exalted: nor are my eyes lofty. Neither have I walked in great matters, nor in wonderful things above me.
2) If I was not humbly minded, but exalted my soul: As a child that is weaned is towards his mother, so reward in my soul.
3) Let Israel hope in the Lord, from henceforth now and for ever.
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.