First of all, pay no attention to CAF. They wouldn't know what communion with the Holy See was if it bit them on the nose. As far as this whole "in communion with Rome" thing, Benedict lifted their excommunications, and several Vatican officials have said people may attend their Masses.

But there's something else you should know. The Society never lost communion with the Catholic Church to begin with. They were excommunicated from the Vatican II church. Archbishop LeFebvre and the Society were never eligible for excommunication. They did nothing that made them worthy of it, they were simply excommunicated for preserving the TLM. So this whole "in communion or not" thing is pointless in a nutshell.

What was the purpose of the Econe consecrations? Did Pope John Paul II have the right to excommunicate the bishops for this?

JPII and the Vatican were upset that Archbishop LeFebvre was going to consecrate new bishops because that would keep the Society going and the Vatican wanted to get rid of the Society. So on the day of the consecrations, JPII sent some personal assistant of his to LeFebvre, who was asked to get in the car and visit the Pope. But LeFebvre said he was about the perform to consecrations and that it was too late to go. So he consecrated the bishops, and less than 24 hours later JPII excommunicated him and the SSPX. JPII had no right to excommunicate them because they did nothing wrong.

Of course he did something wrong, from a canonical perspective.  He was disobedient.  Consecrating bishops without a mandate is an act of schism.  There was no reason to think that an an excommunication would not follow just as it did.  I expect the Archbishop and the four bishops he consecrated knew that better than anyone, and went ahead with the consecrations because they were convinced it was necessary despite the consequences.

The fact that these excommunications have been lifted does not regularize the status of the SSPX.  The pope says they are not at this point in schism, which I would say means he sees them as in communion with him

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

JPII and the Vatican were upset that Archbishop LeFebvre was going to consecrate new bishops because that would keep the Society going and the Vatican wanted to get rid of the Society. So on the day of the consecrations, JPII sent some personal assistant of his to LeFebvre, who was asked to get in the car and visit the Pope. But LeFebvre said he was about the perform to consecrations and that it was too late to go. So he consecrated the bishops, and less than 24 hours later JPII excommunicated him and the SSPX. JPII had no right to excommunicate them because they did nothing wrong.

Of course he did something wrong, from a canonical perspective.  He was disobedient.  Consecrating bishops without a mandate is an act of schism.  There was no reason to think that an an excommunication would not follow just as it did.  I expect the Archbishop and the four bishops he consecrated knew that better than anyone, and went ahead with the consecrations because they were convinced it was necessary despite the consequences.

The fact that these excommunications have been lifted does not regularize the status of the SSPX.  The pope says they are not at this point in schism, which I would say means he sees them as in communion with him

An act of disobedience toward the Pope isn't always schism. Schism is where one totally rejects the authority of the Pope as established by Christ. The SSPX totally accept the authority of the Pope, although Archbishop Lefebvre saw the need to keep Tradition and tradition alive in the Church, so he consecrated the priests. Disobeying the Pope in order to save the rest of the Catholic Church isn't schism.

aipirc,

It is certainly true that all acts of disobedience toward the Holy See do not equal schism.  In fact, most probably don't.  However, consecrating a bishop without a mandate is an act of schism according to canon law, no?

No:

A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity, if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70), and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the priests out of necessity to keep Apostolic Succession and Traditional Catholic theology in the Church. Even if there was no necessity, he wouldn't have incurred a penalty because he thought it was necessary.

Also, the consecrations without the Pope's permission aren't schism because the Archbishop accepted the authority of the Pope as the head of the true Church. Now if Archbishop Lefebvre gave the four bishops jurisdiction, that would be schism because only the Pope can do that and he would be rejecting that exclusive authority.

Quote from: Sigismund

aipirc,

It is certainly true that all acts of disobedience toward the Holy See do not equal schism.  In fact, most probably don't.  However, consecrating a bishop without a mandate is an act of schism according to canon law, no?

No:

A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity, if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70), and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the priests out of necessity to keep Apostolic Succession and Traditional Catholic theology in the Church. Even if there was no necessity, he wouldn't have incurred a penalty because he thought it was necessary.

Also, the consecrations without the Pope's permission aren't schism because the Archbishop accepted the authority of the Pope as the head of the true Church. Now if Archbishop Lefebvre gave the four bishops jurisdiction, that would be schism because only the Pope can do that and he would be rejecting that exclusive authority.

Since my response above opened up another page, I wanted to make it clear exactly what I am acknowledging makes sense.  I am not persuaded that Archbishop Lefebvre was correct.  I am persuaded that if he really believed he was (which I do not question) he did not incur excommunication de facto.  

Thread title: Are the SSPX in communion with the Holy See?

Response: Yes.

How, then, do FSSP and SSPX differ?  The SSPX claims to be faithful to the Holy Father.  They would describe themselves as in communion with the Holy See.  FSSP has done so formally, of course.  FSSP agrees to accept V2 and acknowledges the "validity" of the New Mass.  But didn't Abp. Lefebvre do the same?  I'm trying to determine what are the real substantive differences between FSSP and SSPX, if, indeed, there are any at all.