I'm a little confused about the guidance on reconciling priests and laypeople who have incurred the latae sententiae censure of excommunication for schism. Because the DDF has not declared it for priests and laypeople in the strict legal sense, why would the reconciliation of these individuals not be subject to the ordinary procedure outlined canon 1355 §2? SST also seems to presume that the "Ordinary" is the one competent to remit the excommunication for latae sententiae excommunications resulting from schismatic acts without prescribing any special process. Many bishops (at least in the US) delegate the faculty to remit excommunications arising from heresy, apostasy, and schism to their priests, at least in the context of the Sacrament of Penance—my diocese is one. In cases not obviously involving public scandal, must confessors with the faculty to remit the excommunication for schism submit the process to the bishop, or can the confessor handle it like the excommunication arising from abortion?
My initial reading of the process for priests is that it makes more sense in light of also lifting likely latae sententiae suspensions (c. 1388) and providing for eventual incardination and remission of the irregularity arising from the delict of schism (c. 1041, 2°), the remission of which is reserved to the Holy See. That interpretation is less persuasive in light of the guidance for laypeople. It's also curious there isn't a clear statement about priests seeking reconciliation without continuing in the clerical state. I'm not a canonist, but I foresee this issue potentially coming up in the sacramental forum and it would be helpful to get some clearer guidance. In any case, I would assume the concession in canon 1357 remains in effect.
I hope you all like popcorn, because this is going to be a crazy show to watch. A generation of Cardinal Cupich approved bishops with little theological education welcoming back SSPX priests formed in a rigid form of neo-scholasticism with a twinge of Donatism? I doubt many will come back, but I cannot imagine the Cupich bishops wanting any of these priests as a part of their presbyterates. To be fair, they should be wary - who knows what kind of formation they received? But after going after priests for a decade who introduce ad orientem, altar rails, and more reverent Sacred Liturgies, how will they get their minds around priests who want to accept the conditions but still celebrate the TLM? Minds will be blown.
For the confused among us would it be fair to say for practical purposes: 1) don’t attend SSPX chapels for sacraments or support them and 2) if you’ve done so with any regularity in the past speak to a (non-SSPX) priest or your someone in your diocese to clarify your situation?
Yes, I think that’s probably a prudent direction to take. There’s obviously a difference between attending a wedding/funeral or going once to see what it’s like vs. exclusively going to them and skipping your Sunday obligation if they’re unavailable.
"Across the initial reactions though, is the likely erroneous assumption that the DDF explanatory note intended to effect the excommunication of swathes of clergy and faithful, rather than lay out the circumstances for such excommunications to be declared. The difference is significant."
Given that it also pronounced their confessions and marriages as invalid, I'm not sure hwo safe it is to assume Tucho understands his letter wasn't effecting the excommunication of every priest in the Society.
In short, while this is 100% correct, are we sure the Prefect of the DDF understands this to be so?
Before I read the article, just had to say that it's good to see your name in the byline, Ed.
I second this comment. Hope you are feeling better Ed.
Ed. lives!
Daje Ed che sei grande! Forza
What he said!
I'm a little confused about the guidance on reconciling priests and laypeople who have incurred the latae sententiae censure of excommunication for schism. Because the DDF has not declared it for priests and laypeople in the strict legal sense, why would the reconciliation of these individuals not be subject to the ordinary procedure outlined canon 1355 §2? SST also seems to presume that the "Ordinary" is the one competent to remit the excommunication for latae sententiae excommunications resulting from schismatic acts without prescribing any special process. Many bishops (at least in the US) delegate the faculty to remit excommunications arising from heresy, apostasy, and schism to their priests, at least in the context of the Sacrament of Penance—my diocese is one. In cases not obviously involving public scandal, must confessors with the faculty to remit the excommunication for schism submit the process to the bishop, or can the confessor handle it like the excommunication arising from abortion?
My initial reading of the process for priests is that it makes more sense in light of also lifting likely latae sententiae suspensions (c. 1388) and providing for eventual incardination and remission of the irregularity arising from the delict of schism (c. 1041, 2°), the remission of which is reserved to the Holy See. That interpretation is less persuasive in light of the guidance for laypeople. It's also curious there isn't a clear statement about priests seeking reconciliation without continuing in the clerical state. I'm not a canonist, but I foresee this issue potentially coming up in the sacramental forum and it would be helpful to get some clearer guidance. In any case, I would assume the concession in canon 1357 remains in effect.
I hope you all like popcorn, because this is going to be a crazy show to watch. A generation of Cardinal Cupich approved bishops with little theological education welcoming back SSPX priests formed in a rigid form of neo-scholasticism with a twinge of Donatism? I doubt many will come back, but I cannot imagine the Cupich bishops wanting any of these priests as a part of their presbyterates. To be fair, they should be wary - who knows what kind of formation they received? But after going after priests for a decade who introduce ad orientem, altar rails, and more reverent Sacred Liturgies, how will they get their minds around priests who want to accept the conditions but still celebrate the TLM? Minds will be blown.
For the confused among us would it be fair to say for practical purposes: 1) don’t attend SSPX chapels for sacraments or support them and 2) if you’ve done so with any regularity in the past speak to a (non-SSPX) priest or your someone in your diocese to clarify your situation?
Yes, I think that’s probably a prudent direction to take. There’s obviously a difference between attending a wedding/funeral or going once to see what it’s like vs. exclusively going to them and skipping your Sunday obligation if they’re unavailable.
"Across the initial reactions though, is the likely erroneous assumption that the DDF explanatory note intended to effect the excommunication of swathes of clergy and faithful, rather than lay out the circumstances for such excommunications to be declared. The difference is significant."
Given that it also pronounced their confessions and marriages as invalid, I'm not sure hwo safe it is to assume Tucho understands his letter wasn't effecting the excommunication of every priest in the Society.
In short, while this is 100% correct, are we sure the Prefect of the DDF understands this to be so?
Good to see you back Ed
Holy (content of recent SSPX statements), it's Ed! Welcome back!