The SSPX and the Importance of Technicalities

After the 1534 Act of Supremacy unequivocally declared the monarch to be the “supreme head” of the Church in England, certain friends of St. Thomas More advised him to accept the Act, leaving questions of ecclesial authority to clergy and theologians. King Henry VIII, it could be reasoned, was taking a position on the authority of the bishop of Rome within the Catholic Church, not intending to separate from it in the manner of Martin Luther. Just three years earlier, More himself had not objected to the monarch being declared head of the Church “insofar as the law of God allows.”

But More understood both the importance of technicalities and the duty of laymen to know precisely when the line into separation from the Church has been crossed and whether or not clergy are in union with the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, certain contemporary Catholics do not seem to understand the importance of those points when it is a case of attending Masses offered by priests of the Society of St. Pius X.

A common refrain in some circles is that the status of the SSPX is a “clerical matter” which the laity can leave clergy to dispute. If so, the priests of the SSPX would be the only validly ordained priests in the world whose canonical status need not concern lay Catholics. Nobody would apply that “logic” to the status of priests who have been suspended but continue publicly offering Mass using the Missal of Paul VI, of non-traditionalist priests who have been excommunicated, or of Eastern Orthodox priests.

Whether the priests of the SSPX are in formal schism, material schism, or not in schism, under excommunication, declared suspension or undeclared suspension, or ordained in justifiable contravention of canon law determines under what conditions the laity may attend their Masses without sin.

For example, priests under a suspension are prohibited from administering the sacraments except under certain conditions mentioned in Canon 1335. Priests under a declared suspension can only administer sacraments to those in danger of death. Priests under an undeclared automatic suspension can do so “whenever one of the faithful requests a sacrament” and that “for any just reason it is lawful to make such a request.”

Both before and after the recent episcopal consecrations, SSPX Masses can be attended (under ordinary circumstances) only if its priests’ canonical irregularity is morally justified or if they are under an undeclared automatic suspension without being excommunicated or in formal schism. Ignoring such technicalities when determining whether or not to attend an SSPX Mass can never be morally legitimate.

Since the episcopal consecrations, some have begun to take an opposite but similarly simplistic approach—refusing to make essential distinctions concerning the extent and limits of the authority of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the authority (or lack thereof) of documents it has issued.

For example, if in his official capacity Pope Leo were to promulgate as law the explanatory note attached to the DDF’s decree excommunicating the SSPX bishops, that note would gain a binding legal status it does not currently have. Were he to state in his personal capacity that the SSPX is in schism as a matter of fact, his statement would be one man’s opinion.

That these technicalities can be convenient for those predisposed to “justify” attending SSPX Masses by finding some way to twist ecclesial documents that have binding legal status is irrelevant. But for Catholics predisposed to do whatever the pertinent ecclesial decrees technically allow but no more, making distinctions between the authority of various documents and Vatican statements is crucial.

Whether there is any considerable number of Catholics who can prudently take the latter approach is, of course, an entirely different question.