In this interesting dialogue, Mark and his opponent discuss the validity of the sacraments among the Orthodox and the SSPX from a Roman Catholic point of view. Mark's comments are in blue. His opponent's comments are in red.
And, while I fully accept certain points you make, Charlie, the comprehensiveness of the issue (as to whether or not certain SSPX Sacraments are valid) continues to evade me.
OK. I presume you are viewing this from a position of communio and thereby the more mystical dimension is the reason for this.
Yep. That's the best way to describe what I'm going for, I guess.
I see nothing wrong with communio theology between, I quite prefer it myself much of the time; but there is a tendency for the east to over-mysticize and for the west to over-juridicate-though JP II has done a lot to correct the latter.
I agree on all three points.
But ironically, in his excommunication of Lefebvre de Mayer, and the "Econe 4", the foundation for a more juridical view of certain ecclesial elements remains.
Well, sure. Lefebvre was a schismatic; his break was a schismatic act, and both the sin and the legal censure do and should apply to all that. But, the question remains: what about the Lefebvrists right now? Does God (mystically speaking) honor the Sacramental validity for Confession and marriage within their own (schismatic) ranks?
They have never to my knowledge utilized rites for their Sacraments that depended for jurisdiction on the Western Patriarch.
But, whatever their Rite, many of them were under Roman patriarchal authority.
Patriarch Michael (I never spell his last name right) did not excommunicate the pope in his decree either though in striking the Pope's name from those which were commemorated in the divine liturgy, he might as well have.
This is interpreted by historians, rightly in my opinion, as a formal act of excommunication. Not to mention a bishop at the Liturgy was a very serious matter in the medieval Byzantine Rite. It meant that that episcopate was not in the Church. This is precisely how the Byzantines treated Alexandria for many years when it was a Monophysite see.
For I also remind you that the legitimacy of the excommunication itself has for a long time been in doubt-even before Vatican II-because Pope Leo IX in whose name the excommunication would have any binding force was dead at the time.
True. But, Humbertus was empowered to act in the Pope's name; and succeeding Popes behaved as if the excommunication was valid and binding. So, to be honest, I think that the idea that "there never was an excommunication" is rooted in attempts (by Cardinal Cassidy and others) to "be nice" with the modern Orthodox, and vise-versa.
He had died if I recall a couple months earlier and the Roman See at the time was vacant.
Well, the Roman See had not appointed its next bishop, but the See of Peter itself is never "empty" per se, since the authority of Rome still resided in its "presbyters" (i.e., the cardinals)-the very authority that can elect a new Pope. In other words, the Pope's authority is the authority of the church of Rome, not vise-versa. This understanding of ecclesiology would be even more clear for those in the 11th Century than it is for us today; and this is what was really at play when Rome excommunicated "Cerularius and all his communicants." In essence, what Rome was saying is that we excommunicate the reigning bishop, but not the church which appointed him, separating Cerularius from the Byzantine church.
Essentially by trying to enforce the decrees of a dead Pope at a time when the Roman See was vacant, Humbert was perhaps the first significant "sedevacantist" in Church history.
But, what I've described above reveals the utter silliness and un-Catholic nature of sedevacantism itself. Indeed, the Chair of Peter can never really be empty, since the Chair (the ultimate chair of the Universal Church) is really the teaching authority of the Church of Rome itself. The only question is: who rightfully speaks for that Roman church? Who presides there? This, for example, is what would allow the Roman Cardinals to depose an undisputed reigning Pope as "antipope" if he were to teach something contrary to an established dogma. If, for example, a future Pope were to teach that Christ is not God, then he would automatically be an antipope (even if he was validly elected and undisputed) because he opposes the Chair-that is, the authority of Peter and the other Roman bishops who came before him: the constant dogmatic Faith of the church of Rome. It was under this principal that Honorius was anathematized not because he formally taught a heresy but, by neglectfully failing to condemn a heresy (Honorius refused to take a position for or against Monothelitism) he was regarded as being unfaithful to the Petrine duty of Rome, thereby separating himself from the Roman See and its authority-authority which he had mismanaged. But, in all of this, the Roman See itself was seen as steady and blameless. Rather, its minister merely failed to live up to what the Roman Church consistently taught and stood for. We tend to overlook this aspect when it comes to modern "Papology".
The long and short of it is this: there was no subsequent excommunication that I am aware of that was made by the popes or their representatives.
But, as I said, the 1054 excommunication was still enforced in practice. In fact, just before the First Crusade, when the Byzantine emperor petitioned Urban II for troops to help against the Turks, the Pope responded by re-admitting him to communion with Rome. So, there still seemed to be a problem in effect between the Byzantine patriarch and anyone who was in communion with him (e.g. the emperor).
In the spiritual sphere, such an excommunication would have no binding force. Maybe this is the reason that Rome has taken the approach towards the sacraments of the east as she has all along.
Well, again, Charlie, whether it was formal and de iure or not, it remains that Rome and Byzantium did not communicate with each other. I think you're "Roman legalism" is showing here because the reality simply was that the two Churches did not consider each other to be of the same religion.
Hence we had almost a thousand years of ecclesiastical "chicken."
Well, in truth, I think it was a little more than just "chicken." I think the root of the schism, and the reason Eastern Orthodoxy is separate from Rome today, is because Byzantium's universal ecclesiology is based on a modified form of Emperor worship (the Emperor as Pontifex Maximus/"Christ on earth"), rather than the organic and undeveloped universal ecclesiology of the pre-Constantinian Church, which recognized Rome as its final court of appeal for universal matters. Indeed, this organic, undeveloped universal ecclesiology was only clarified and defined when Rome was forced to exert her authority in more secular ways (as opposed to more modest and humble "Christian ways-"be a servant to all") when Byzantium itself (as the "imperial Church") began to administer, and of course mismanage, the Church's affairs on a universal level. So, what we're really dealing with is an Apostolic Church with a developing awareness of its universal ecclesiology (based on the authority of Peter at Rome) vs. an imperial Church (based on Constantine and his successors... whether that be the "Caesar" of Constantinople or the "Czar" of Russia, or Serbia, or Bulgaria... or the cultural heirs of these individual powers in all their respective manifestations. So, what was really happening was that Rome was defending its ancient Apostolic authority now in a more clearly defined way-a way in which a more secularized Church could understand it, and Byzantium, who was the cause of Rome's more secular and direct expression of Petrine authority, was not able to see or discern this development (because it was the cause of it), and could only react in a partisan and "nationalistic" way-accusing Rome itself of haughtiness and pride (without considering the fact that Jesus never made a provision for an Emperor to govern His Church.
And, it is because of the blindness to this alien aspect in their ecclesiology (their role being primarily that of a "state cult" or "ethnic cult," as the case may be), that the Eastern Orthodox continue to think that Rome is overstepping its boundaries. In other words, the Greeks and Slavs are the victims of a political philosophy which pre-dates the Church, and which goes back to the "divine" emperors of Rome, and before them, to the god-kings of the Hellenistic empires (from where Rome got it's "divine emperors") and the Pharaohs and other royal "living gods" who came before them. Thus, in essence, the struggle is between Christ (and His Vicar) and Antichrist. And I think this is appreciated in the spiritual realm.
The Apostolic Church is not divided for over 1,000 years because of a mere accident. There is clearly something demonic involved... even if honest human error is part of the mix.
Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athengoras by agreeing to mutually rescind them put an end to that sorry saga.
Well, Paul VI did on our side. The successors to Athenegoras don't necessarily follow his pro-Western policies. This present Patriarch, Bartholomew, has been very difficult at times, even calling the two Churches "ontologically different." Which, in essence, means that we are heretics, and still not in communion with him.
And JP II in his 1995 Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint basically through down the gauntlet. The Orthodox have yet to really pick it up yet.
I think this is because: a) they're still stunned that he would do that (e.g. I'm sure that there are still some Greek Orthodox standing frozen with their mouths hanging open in that square in Athens where JPII apologized to the Orthodox for the sins of Catholics who hurt them! And b) they are terrified by the notion that we're ready to discuss Roman primacy from scratch with them. Like good little Byzantines, their prevailing thought is, "what does Rome have up its sleeve?"
The difference though between the Greek Orthodox and the SSPX is that the former by renouncing the Pope's authority essentially put themselves outside the ecclesiastical body.
But not justly, of course. Thus, a censure against the validity of their Confessions should, in theory, apply just as with the SSPX.
The earliest generations would have the greater percentages of formal to material schismatics with the numbers of formal schismatics declining over time. The SSPX by contrast refuse to repudiate the Pope; ergo they are still subject to him viz. jurisdiction. They are also a very young schism-only formalized about fifteen years ago.
Right. But, they do have children in their ranks... and their sin of schism was a reality long before it was formalized. What's more, given that the SSPX does not repudiate the Pope, this should argue **in favor** of their Sacramental validity (viz. Confession), not against it. I speak of Confessions held among the SSPX themselves --within their own schismatic "communio." This should make them more valid than the renegade Byzantines, not less.
There is also the fact that the Greek Orthodox use Eastern rites and ceremonies not western ones. But the key is that they have repudiated the Pope's authority.
But, Charlie... how does repudiating Rome help to validate Sacraments? What's more, Sacramental grace is not defined or governed by the cultural ritual, but by the true priesthood and the essentials of the Sacraments as Christ instituted them. As for the SSPX, they follow the ritual of Rome in centuries past, and so follow that authority insofar as the validity of their Sacramental form is concerned.
The SSPX by their claims of obedience to the pope require thus from him the jurisdiction of his patriarchal functions which they do not have.
All true from a legal point of view. But, what of a mystical/spiritual point of view? Essentially, as I understand it, the SSPX claims that Rome has overstepped its authority and does not have the competence to forbid them from worshipping as our ancient forefathers did. In this, Lefebvre may have been right; and JPII, whether bowing to his argument or not, has defused that issue by re-instating the Tridentine Rite for those who wish to celebrate it. Now, granted, the SSPX is guilty of real sins that make them formal schismatics (e.g. the invalid consecration of bishops; the prevailing notion, not merely that Rome cannot mandate the Novus Ordo, but that Rome has no authority to change the Liturgy at all, etc.). Yet, again, from the point of view of "communio," can we not say that Christ may honor the validity of Confessions within the SSPX itself, even if Rome has rightfully decreed that these Confessions have no Sacramental validity (under ordinary circumstances) within the general Body of the Catholic Church?
The Greek Orthodox by contrast can receive patriarchal jurisdiction from Constantinople.
Not without the authority of Rome, they can't. Let's not forget, Charlie, that Constantinople is not an Apostolic patriarchate. Rather, it was Rome which, after denying it to them for centuries, eventually granted patriarchal dignity to Constantinople because Alexandria and Antioch (the two true Apostolic patriarchates in the East) had fallen under Muslim rule. So, just like Canterbury, Constantinople owes its rightful authority to Rome... not only because Rome made it a patriarchate, but because, as a European see, once answerable to the metropolitanate of Thessalonica, which was the Papal legate for Macedonia and Thrace, Byzantium was originally part of the Roman patriarchate. And ancient Constantinople used to admit all this ...as when they attempted (but failed) to make themselves into a patriarchate at the Council of Chalcedon, and Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople had to apologize to Pope Leo for the infamous Canon 28, writing,
As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the Church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the Church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness . Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. -Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).
Though I call on Pete to answer this one, as he can do so much better than my half-baked efforts, the long and short of it is this (i) the Church does not hold the Anglicans to proper canonical form whereas it does the SSPX (ii) the Anglicans repudiated the papal authority a long time ago and hence have become a "Church" unto themselves (iii) the SSPX is under excommunication due to the formal schism of its bishops.
But, Charlie... the Anglicans are also "...under excommunication due to the formal schism of its bishops." What's the difference? And, what's more, the Anglican bishops are objective, material heretics, whereas the SSPX bishops are not ...not in terms of established dogma, that is.
This would validate their sacraments of confession and matrimony but not make them licit.
Well, I would not say (except in some very rare cases) that any Anglican Confession is Sacramentally valid. Except for certain accidents of history, the vast majority of Anglican "priests" are nothing of the sort. Anglican marriage is Sacramentally valid, however, both because it is recognized as a Sacrament (at least by the High Anglicans) and because the marriage of any two properly baptized non-Catholic Christians (whether they be Anglicans or Baptists) is Sacramentally valid because it is the Christian man and the Christian woman who administer the Sacrament to each other. This life-long covenantal pledge of two Christians in the flesh (a man and a woman, of course... you have to say that these days is enough to satisfy the "incarnational" requirements for a Sacrament. Both the proper form and the proper ministers are there.
Under Church law, no excommunicated prelate can celebrate any of the sacraments licitly
Right. It is definitely an illicit, but valid, thing... just like Protestant Baptism.
Baptism is not a sacrament that depends on jurisdiction for validity - the validity of the sacrament is in its proper administration if you will.
But, neither (so my argument goes) is Confession or marriage within ecclesial communities that a) have the true priesthood but b) are schismatically cut off from Rome. Or, look at it this way, say that a validly ordained priest leaves the priesthood and becomes a regular layman. Well, in everyday life, the Church would clearly say (and rightly so) that, if this "retired" priest were to say Mass, the Mass would not be Sacramentally valid. However, given that ordination indelibly marks the soul, and that any man who is ordained is "a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," then, if, for example, this "retired" priest were to end up on Gilligan's Island and if the Skipper, the Professor, and Mary Anne were in need of the Sacraments (with there being no chance of them ever being rescued or re-connected to civilization and the active ministry of the Church), then it is arguable, and even most likely, that this "true priest" (for, whether he is "sitting on the bench" or not, he IS a true priest) could minister to them in a priestly capacity. This is how I'm approaching the problem of the SSPX which, whether for right or wrong (we think for wrong) is a schismatic "island" unto itself. So, would not Jesus honor the poor deluded souls on that island (e.g. the Charlies on that island) as He would Gilligan and his fellow castaways? :-) ...as He does the Greeks and Slavs.
You and I can baptize people Mark, yet we cannot confirm them.
Right. However, an Eastern Orthodox bishop can Confirm a member of his Greek flock. But, he cannot Confirm a Roman like you are me ...or a Byzantine Catholic who is in communion with us.
And they can pour out their souls to us all day and we could never say "I absolve thee" and have it be anything but empty words.
Right again. But this is because we are not priests. What of those who are? I refer to the SSPX and their own people.
The reason is confession as a sacrament requires power of ordination and faculties of jurisdiction for validity.
But, Charlie... in cases of emergency, a SSPX priest can Confess us, but he is STILL not under proper jurisdiction. The same is true of an Eastern Orthodox priest (assuming you can find one who will Confess a "godless Roman").
Those who repudiate the Pope or who leave the ecclesiastical body have to go elsewhere for their jurisdiction-provided that power of ordination is present. Jurisdiction comes either from bishops or from patriarchs, I am inclined to think it is the latter even though patriarches are also bishops.
But, as I said, the Patriarch of Constantinople draws his patriarchal authority, not from the Apostles, but from Rome. Yet, we still recognize their Sacraments. And also, the SSPX has true bishops ...albeit some illicit ones. What's more, what of the non-Chalcedonian churches of the East-all of which are either governed by anti-Patriarchates (Monophysite pretenders set up in opposition to the true patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), or who... like the Malabar and the Nestorians... have no Apostolic patriarchs at all. Yet, we recognize their Sacraments too.
Charlie, as we discuss this more and more, I'm really beginning to conclude that what Rome means in claiming that SSPX Confession and marriage is "invalid" is NOT that these priestly Sacraments are objectively invalid (within the SSPX community itself), but rather that they are invalid insofar as they apply to the general Body of the Catholic Church. For instance, to draw a straight analogy with the Eastern schismatics... if an Eastern Orthodox or non-Chalcedonian priest was to Confess a Catholic, or administer marriage between two Catholics, these Sacraments would likewise be invalid-that is, not applicable TO Catholics. The same would, of course, be true of Confirmation. However, if a Catholic was to attend an Eastern Orthodox or non-Chalcedonian Divine Liturgy (Mass), then the graces of that Eucharist (although not satisfying one's Sunday obligation) would be applied to the Catholic who was present (despite his inability to receive) because the Eucharist would be a valid one, and so a source of grace (indeed, THE source of grace-the one Eucharist of Christ and His Church). Don't we say exactly the same for the SSPX? So, isn't this what "invalidity" must mean?
But if the SSPX formally announce in an explicit and unmistakable manner that they are no longer beholden to the pope and go their own way completely, rather than the half-baked weasley "we are obedient to the Pope and are not in schism" drivel, then yes, you would be correct. They would essentially supply their own validity. But as long as they are in the Church, they are beholden to the western patriarch for any validity.
Well, again, I cannot see how this can possibility be the case... especially not from the point of view of Sacramental mystery. If a bishop possesses the episcopal charism, then he already has self-supplying Sacramental validity, whether he is in communion with Rome or not. Rome is the "source of sacerdotal UNITY," not of sacerdotal grace, which comes from all the Apostles (not just Peter) via the principal of Apostolic succession. All Rome can do, via its Petrine authority to bind and loosen, is decide whether or not a bishop's sacerdotal grace is acceptable and applicable within the general Body of the Church; but, as dispensations in cases of emergency illustrate, Rome cannot objectively "turn off" or nullify (read: invalidate) sacerdotal grace itself when such grace acts beyond the limits of the institutional Church. My argument is that the schismatic community of the SSPX, whether it admits itself to be so or not, is beyond those institutional limits. And, indeed, Charlie... it seems to me that there is something of a contradiction in your argument, insofar that, on one hand, you apparently argue (per the problems with Humbertus' excommunication of Cerularius) that the Eastern Orthodox are not really excommunicated, but technically still within the Catholic Church; yet, on the other hand, you say that the SSPX is also still technically inside the Church, which is why we deny some of their Sacraments. But, if this is the case, then we should deny the Sacraments of the EO's as well. Or am I missing something? Indeed, Charlie, I would argue that it makes absolutely no difference whether a schismatic community considers itself inside or outside the Church at all. Rather, what matters is whether Rome
After all, that's what excommunication generally meant --being cut off from the Sacraments of the Church. For example, if a priest is excommunicated today, we do not recognize his Mass as valid.
We do not recognize his mass as licit the mass itself is still valid because the sacrament of the Eucharist -as confected at mass- is not dependent on jurisdiction for validity. The mass he would celebrate would still be valid though (due to its illicit nature) it is probable that such a mass would not satisfy the Sunday obligation.
I'm sorry. I should have been more specific. When I spoke of a priest as "excommunicated," I meant singularly and without the benefit of a bishop --a laicized priest, such as the one in my analogy above. If no Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox ...or SSPX, etc.) bishop recognizes a man as a functioning priest, then his Mass cannot be Sacramentally valid in any manifestation of the Catholic Church... except under very special circumstances (e.g. Gilligan's island), because his true priesthood is still there, even if it is "benched" by the authority of a bishop.
And, in the case of the Greeks, it was only later (when the pastoral objectives of this excommunication were not yielding results) that Rome began to concede certain points and speak of the East still having a valid priesthood and valid Sacraments, etc. Yet, during the period of the Crusades, for example, receiving Sacraments in the Greek Church was generally not considered valid. Obviously because the Greeks were under censure.
I believe you are confusing validity and licit-ness here Mark. If you replaced the word "valid" with the word "licit", I would concur with the statement completely.
Oh, no, Charlie. "Valid" is what I meant. I refer to the common belief of the time-that the EO's were totally outside of the Church. When, in objective reality, they weren't.
You and Josh keep presenting cases in which faithful Catholics are receiving Sacraments from the schismatic SSPX. I have no problem with Rome's position on that. But, a) what of the SSPX's own cradle members? Are we to say that they are, despite the true priesthood, not receiving the Sacramental grace of Confession and/or marriage?
Okay, you just moved the chains again on me. There is a difference between receiving a valid sacrament and receiving the grace of the sacraments. For example, if you were to go to confession and were unaware of the priest's standing-lets say you thought he was Ecclesia Dei- you would leave that confession hearing his words of absolution. But then you later learn that he was SSPX and therefore his absolution was not valid. Are you still in your sins as a result?
No. But, this has nothing to do with the SSPX priest's absolution of me (a Catholic in communion with Rome), but is a matter of "penance by desire" which, yes, is a "Sacramental grace" of sorts, but not the grace of the Sacrament of Confession itself --the grace one receives from priestly absolution. If you and I were on Gilligan's island, I could receive the same sort of "penance by desire" by confessing to you or the Skipper :-) ...or to Christ directly. However, what I'm arguing is that, within the ranks of the SSPX itself, a person can receive the Sacramental grace of priestly absolution-a grace which, admittedly, no SSPX can impart to you or me EXCEPT in cases of emergency and IN those cases of emergency, we would not merely be receiving the grace of "penance by desire," but a true priestly absolution, even though the supposed requirements of jurisdiction have never been satisfied. This, as I said, leads me to conclude that no such requirements are necessary for valid Confession within the ranks of the SSPX themselves.
I am of the view that you are not, provided that you confess this at your next confession.
Exactly. And I need to repeat what I said to the SSPX priest at my next Confession because, under ordinary circumstances, the SSPX priest does not have the Sacramental competence to confess to me (a Catholic in communion with Rome). However, as my argument goes, this same SSPX priest does have the Sacramental competence to Confess one of his own (schismatic) flock.
If you had gone to that priest knowing he was SSPX and the circumstances surrounding them, you would likewise not receive the sacrament. Nor in the latter case would you receive the grace of the sacrament since you had knowledge of the matter.
Granted. But, a cradle member of the SSPX does not have such "knowledge" and is (arguably) a victim of invincible ignorance in this regard. Thus, what is invalid for me, is not invalid for him. The same would be true of an Eastern Orthodox. If I went to a Byzantine priest for Confession in Russia, thinking he was Byzantine Catholic, but it later turned out that he was Russian Orthodox, the Confession would not be valid for me (with the exception of "penace by desire" ..or in case of true emergency). However, it would be completely valid for the Russian Orthodox layman who "steps up to the icon" after me.
It would seem to me to be an exercise in scruples to re-confess everything from before. However, the knowledge of the nature of the last confession should be made to the confessor. You could apply this principle I believe to those who are cradle SSPXers.
Only if they have a true "knowledge," however. Most of them do not. So, has Jesus abandoned them (and their priests) Sacramentally? I don't believe that He would.
These are the first steps if you will in seeking to extract her from attending mass there. I do not anticipate having any greater influence on her than Jesus had on the people of Nazareth of you know what I mean.
Sure do. My own family isn't a SSPX problem, but the more common problem of secularism. Yet, the same applies. A "prophet" is never accepted in his own home town.
If I went into detail on the situation in my family the past four years with people dying left and right, you would understand my reasons for taking a gentle hand on the matter here rather than donning my Boniface VIII tiara and re-promulgating Unam Sanctum. But as the Preacher says "to everything there is a season", I do hope to fully extract her from attending mass there before the year is out.
Well, your mom may be a "convertable" case (I truly hope she is); but this addresses precisely the argument I raise and why. Yes, the sin of schism (formally and materially) abounds in the SSPX. The sin of material heresy abounds among the non-Chalcedonians too! But, does Jesus abandon His priests and people (on the local, parochial level) because of that? Or does He not take the 'bare minimum' and work with it anyway.
Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate
July 20, 2004