Why not? The SSPX is doing pretty well under Francis, despite being in "irregular communion" for 40 years. The priests of the Diocese of Ahiara refused to accept their bishop for five years until they finally got someone from their own tribe, and never suffered any consequences. The Coptic Pope Tawadros II leads a church that has been in schism for over 1500 years and he just celebrated Divine Liturgy at Saint Peter's earlier this year.
Ecclesiastical authority, but that doesn't translate to civil authority. I know of one instance in which the prior of a monastery signed a civil contract that, canonically speaking, he didn't have the power to sign (his provincial should have been the one to approve it). Nevertheless, the community was bound by it, because US civil law is not bound by canon law.
As Commissary, the Bishop has no involvement in financial or property assets.
This was also the case before he found someone in Rome to make him Commissary. He was not made Commissary by the Cardinal Prefect, but an Archbishop with a history of closing Monasteries in Europe. In our Church men get to make all the rules and break all the rules. Bishop Hubbard who died today is exhibit #1
The whole Commissary commission looks pretty sketchy, it’s true. But regardless, it happened. And it holds weight because the Church has the authority to do it. The Church is the Body of Christ & sometimes the Body of Christ dying. We have to honor that or Catholicism becomes civil and democratic vs Apostolic.
It’s a complicated process, but the distribution of assets is covered by Canon law if the monastery were suppressed, and the Vatican could include the diocese in the distribution. These Nuns are not getting good advice. I do think they have been abused; they enjoyed a great deal of autonomy and the respect and spiritual support from laity and the Diocese for many years. They seem to be truly caught off guard, as they say, and reacting under the pressure of this imposed isolation and humiliation.
I will ask St. Therese of Lisieux to pray for Archbishop Vigano's repentance; she prayed for Hyacinthe Loyson to repent, seems like this would be in her wheelhouse.
While I was thinking of it yesterday, I asked her to pray also for that bishop who attempted marriage and had a stroke, although I did not think at the time that it was urgent. But I guess it was.
<<In their Aug. 18 statement, the nuns said they have also made some liturgical changes at their monastery.
“In order to better render glory to God and “more profoundly to enter into the contemplation of His Sacred Mysteries,” the nuns said they have decided “to celebrate the Sacred Liturgy, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Divine Office, the sacraments, sacramentals and other rites according to the older forms of the Roman rite according to the traditional Discalced Carmelite usages.”>>
but yes, Vigano is a traditionalist. you don't get to exclude him from that identifier just because you don't like him. there is a significant overlap between traditionalists and support for Trump, and Church Militant is also a semi-traditionalist group- its opposition to some other traditionalist groups does not change that.
Still, I would not consider Vigano a traditionalist. As far as I know he has only even celebrated the TLM a handful of times and seemed to start doing so only as recently as 2020.
Sure, there is some overlap as there is usually overlap between many groups in an organization as big as the universal church.
I can assure you Vigano and Church Militant are not popular in any TLM circle of which I’ve ever been a part.
I would ask you to consider that your original tone is still not charitable calling them “traddies” as an insult and lumping that group in with Vigano as if we all love Vigano.
In my view, “Traddies” represent a certain flavor of traditionally-minded individual. Certainly not all who attend TLM. Personally I would describe the term as describing someone more willing to trust their own informed-by-tradition concept of Catholicism over the current Church hierarchy’s. They may even be right in their critique… but they need to remain obedient. Obedience is a deeper tradition of the Church even than the traditions they hold most dear. “Christ was obedient unto death, even death on a Cross. Therefore God highly
exalted Him…” Perhaps forgetting that Christ’s obedience ended in His death, however, traddies seem to be justifying themselves as “martyrs” for resisting the guidance of their ‘modernist’ but legitimate Church leadership. And, yes, Vigano is very much a “traddie”
in this sense. Perhaps look up Taylor Marshall on YouTube to get up to speed.
Brendan, I'm glad to hear how you approach the matters separating traditionalism from these problematic figures. Yet, I have to say you are probably the only one I've ever seen doing that. Not that my experience is vast and broad, but from where I sit, being a traditionalist embraces all the weirdness this thread mentions.. Would that it would not be so.
May I ask to what extent that experience is online vs in person?
I have been going almost exclusively to the TLM for years. I’ve certainly met my fair share of nutty people and the types of traditionalists Jen and Joseph are talking about. But they are a minority in my experience.
I’ve also met my fair share of Novus Ordo Catholics that use contraception and think two men should be able to marry. The issue I have with Joseph’s comment is he uses the term “traddy” to make us “other” and lumps us all together. We ought to acknowledge that within different “groups” of the church there are different issues and levels of heterodoxy. I don’t think it’s accurate or fair to paint traditionalists as the biggest problem, and Joseph seems to constantly do that.
Vigano in his screed on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he called Moscow the Second Rome and basically the screed was lifted from the esoterist Dugin. Some schismatic cultic religious houses follow him, but they're nothing of note.
A Christian who mostly rejects the authority of the pope or local bishop is a "schismatic". A Christian who completely rejects their authority is a "separated brother in Christ". Hard to get to worked up about these things, tbh.
I had been saying all along that this monastery was likely to be shut down by the Vatican, and I guess they will be cut loose in a slightly different way (declared cut off from the Church instead of suppressed).
I am curious about the civil legal situation here though. Does Bishop Olson or his representatives have the legal right to enter the monastery property? Before it seemed that he did when the nuns' civil suit failed, but I wonder if this declaration changes anything. If they are not officially part of the diocese, I'm not sure how a secular judge can find that the diocese has any authority over them. Unless the state recognizes the authority of Canon Law and the right of the Pope to ultimately control their order? It's an interesting situation due to the legal implications of this case.
"Bishop Olson asks the faithful of the Diocese of Fort Worth and all people of good will to pray for the Carmelites that they will stop their open disobedience."
This is a very reasonable request and I would have done it anyway. Like, yes, it is not fun to have a grown man yell at you or say rude things about you, but when this happens, maybe we think about the Passion (where Jesus put up with a lot of that, and so much more), instead of deciding to figuratively jump out of the plane without a parachute. I will ask St James and St John, "sons of thunder", to pray for them.
With regards to Bishop Olsen allegedly yelling at the nuns, that's what the nuns claimed, but unfortunately for them, there's an audio recording of the meeting. The bishop doesn't even raise his voice, and is calm and logical throughout.
Groan. The Nuns never claimed that he yelled during the initial interrogation when the Bishop showed up with his team and tape recorder. I find the recording unbearable to listen to again, but it made me more certain that the subsequent complaints of the Sisters are valid.
Yes, the complaints enumerated in the lawsuit. After the recording was played in court many critics claimed that the Sisters mischaracterized the Bishop’s behavior because he isn’t shouting on the tape. But the tape was made at the beginning of a three-day raid on the monastery where they said he took their devices, refused the Prioress’ choice of Canonist, sent one of his staff into the enclosure along with a forensic technician and insisted on questioning each of the sisters. He lost his temper when they refused to allow more questioning.
All of this was done before the Vatican retroactively granted authority. There is a lot of information out there. On the recording itself the Prioress is clearly welcoming the Bishop, clearly not expecting to be interrogated, and cooperative before the entire monastery was thrown into turmoil. Some commenters say he had the authority to do all of this. I am only saying that the the Nuns believed that the Bishop’s actions and the restrictions he placed on the Prioress were not, at the time, within the Bishop’s authority. It is documented on the tape that he imposed them. I am not a Canon lawyer, but I believe her rights were violated when the Bishop refused three of her choices and chose a Canon lawyer for her.
Yes and perhaps we may also reflect if the raised voice may be appropriate given the circumstances. I think all of us who are parents know that at times a firm word is warranted. To claim that a raised voice is ipso facto abuse comes off as Precious and Fragile on the Nuns’ part.
To use your analogy, a “firm word” followed by reading the errant adult child’s diary, locking her in her room with no dinner, forbidding the rest of the family to speak with her, taking her clothes, then kicking her out of the house, might cross the line into abuse.
I wonder if people will finally consider the possibility that the person they’ve viewed as the victim in this situation could actually be a master manipulator.
Padre Pio’s superiors put unjust restrictions on him, but he obeyed them. The mark of holiness is obedience. These nuns should have followed the example of Padre Pio, but instead they have chosen to break from Holy Mother Church like the SSPX have. Bishop Olson may well have been abusing his authority, but what these nuns are doing is never legitimate or justified. We should pray for their repentance and their reconciliation with Holy Mother Church.
St. Damien of Molokai wasn't a shining example of obedience to his superiors. There were quite a few saints who didn't always comply eagerly with everything that was asked of them. But I think there is still a general trend of respect at least, if not mindless acquiescence to every order given.
To put it more clearly, I think there is a place for resistance and pushback, if it's justified and respectful--authority isn't ALWAYS right, and sometimes there are other spiritual goods to be considered, as in St. Damien's case where he had a duty as shepherd of the Molokai lepers--but this sort of flagrant disregard for the hierarchy in direct charge of them still looks pretty unreasonable.
Charity or love, not obedience, is held up as the highest of virtues in the New Testament. And when Christ was obedient to the point of death, that was ultimately to the Father's Will. The apostles gleefully disobeyed the Sanhedrin's injunction not to preach, didn't they?
Point taken. But a letter publicly stating their refusal to acknowledge a legitimate superior is still several steps beyond St. Damien having strong words with his superiors around allocating more resources to the lepars under his care.
Michael, with respect to you, my friend, is there no holiness in the Orthodox churches? Are they not replete with martyrs, mystics, and great saints of their own? Did not the 21 Coptic martyrs in Libya shed their blood for the word of God, despite being "disobedient" to the See of Rome? Has there not been a single holy Protestant? Holy Mother Church would not say or imply so, and neither should we?
There's a pretty big difference between those who "inherit" their schism, so to speak, and those who commit the act. And the catechism is very clear about that. Paragraph 818: "However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers..."
The previous paragraph, meanwhile, refers to the act as damnable.
So I don't think we can point to holy Orthodox or Protestants and just say "see, schism is no big deal."
How is the Holy Mother Church able to invite our separated brothers and sisters back into the fold if we hold such strong feelings of animosity, implying that they know full well what they are doing by their separation resulting from their cultural heritage. It takes time to convince and persuade towards the truth, using reason in the faith. The virtue of humility should moderate those who profess to be righteous in their cause. Obedience to proper authority will be noted more mercifully than self assurance of righteousness on these matters such as the witnesses of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Padre Pio as well as many many other pillars of the faith. Please consider praying for the virtues necessary for holiness in these matters for them and for us.
With all the vile allegations against Catholic clergy, drug abuse has not been a prominently reported problem. It would not be surprising as drug consumption on an industrial scale has long been part of the gay scene. One of our local clergy, on top of his sexual misbehaviour and massive alcohol abuse, has been accused of using cocaine.
It is doubly bizarre to have drug consumption happen inside a convent, given the pious and well ordered image of such places. But that enclosed and private world offers protection for all kinds of misconduct.
I’m sorry, but I often times wondered if our good Lord Jesus had many opportunities to laugh. And yet all my life I believe he was a master of good humor. Sometimes we take life a bit serious and cannot see the ironys’ that can lighten up our day. Thank you for reminding me that humor is an illuminating virtue indeed. Cheers!
abuse is one thing; to reject authority is another. A bold step & very sad. There seems to be a belief among certain traditionally-minded folks that God will not suffer His Church to endure mismanagement or leadership flavored with fallenness. I wonder if they have not read their Old Testament lately. Or their Church history. Vigano likening the Nuns to martyrs and rallying support for them against their Bishop seems vastly misguided in my view.
One last reflection - to accuse a Bishop of such major abuse is a big deal. Will the Nuns substantiate their claim with evidence, or will they sling out an accusation much like they and the Bishop have been doing since this all began? “He said, she said” chapter two, only now
with Archbishop V in the wings while Bishop O stands in his corner backed by the Pope…? I feel like I said this several months ago but it bears repeating: it’s a bad look.
The Vigano statement was published months ago, addressing the initial impasse. Truly unfortunate that the Nuns chose to invoke it now, indeed at all; not the best strategy to get the Pope on your side, but then the Carmelites are not necessarily up on current events.
But I accept their allegations of major abuse of authority; it is born out in the recording of the initiation of the three-day raid itself as well as the actions by the Bishop and Diocesan officials that followed. The Nuns have effectively been in prison since April. I also understand from experience (as an advocate for religious) that the Vatican might choose not to respond to the appeal and allow the Chapter to die a slow death, cut off from their lay supporters and their choice of priests to administer the sacraments. If Archbishop Carballo was looking for a way to pounce on that land, the Nuns just handed it to him.
What an unwise escalation of a bizarre contretemps! Still bewildered, but this sort of thing suggests too much isolation and too little (or just bad) formation.
I don’t believe they turned to Vigano; he issued that statement months ago and they relied on its content, unfortunately. Vigano was actually a good Nuncio. Like so many in the Church who are languishing under the weight of other’s bad decisions, he is lashing out, at times destructively.
The nuns have suffered greatly under this Bishop since, April. Mass was allowed after Rev. Mother was dismissed from the the Carmelite order on June 1,2023. However, the priest and the Director of Diocesan Security have arrived each morning through August18. No homily was provided at these Masses not even on Sunday ( as required by Cannon Law). Lay faithful have not been allowed on property since April 25/26. How does the Church justify this cruelty from a documented troubled Bishop. Why is the entire Community suffering for a confidential matter between a single nun and Rome? This is a disaster for the Church, and demonstrates the mistreatment of women religious by the hierarchy.
Yet, the former Bishop of Albany ( see his story on pillarcatholic) can receive last rights as Bishop emeritus, while under investigation for sexual abuse, and who recently entered into a civil marriage with a woman. Where is justice in our Church?
Don’t forget that it was the Nuns themselves who first made this “private matter” public by getting the press involved. I don’t deny mishandling by the Bishop, but the Nuns substantially fed the dumpster fire too.
Sorry but that is not the case. The Bishop sent out a letter to all the priests first, followed by a letter to the Diocesan faithful putting her private matter on blast! ( stating she broke the sixth commandment) Check the Diocesan website it's all there. Please only deal will facts. You're statement is false.
The Nuns blasted all their donors with a shaming statement about the Bishop days before the Bishop posted or wrote anything. I’m extremely aware of the facts.
What's really going on here? If you can't believe in the truth why continue to post false statements. You are aware of only what you choose. Facts do not seem to be on the menu. You have every right to support the Bishop, however facts are facts.
Jen, I am in this diocese and know some of the Carmelite supporters. I did not hear a word of what was going on at the convent until the Bishop put it on the diocesan website and the media picked it up. Now, that's just my experience, but most of my faithful, Catholic friends heard about this the same way. And those who knew something didn't say anything until after the media stories started coming out. No one was surprised at the bishop's actions since this is the way he operates all the time. I am sorry for the sisters; I don't think this is the best way, but I deeply sympathize with their plight. If you go to the Laity In Unity petition for an apostolic visitation, many of the signers have personally witnessed his excellency lose his temper in public. He is reported to have said to one group "I am the shepherd, you are just the sheep." Pray for us in Fort Worth. We need a new bishop.
Yes I lived in your diocese for a very long time. I’m familiar with your Bishop’s reputation for a top-down style. He seems to have a particular affinity for writing letters & insisting they be read from the pulpit, and for publicizing problems. Comes off as a bit intense, perhaps, esp in current times when we expect men to be less authorian and more mellow. But it still doesn’t make the nuns right to divest themselves of Olson’s authority. I don’t deny they should do *something*; I really think this was the wrong something.
This does not change my view that this latest statement was a mistake, but there was an interview in the July 31 issue of the Star-Telegram with the Nun who is caregiver for the Prioress. I found it enlightening. The Nuns had dropped the appeal of the civil action in order to allow the canonical appeal to proceed. It seems they hoped this would cause the Bishop to ease up on the restrictions affecting the entire community. That did not happen.
Here is a tidbit:
“The sisters elected Gerlach as reverend mother two years ago because of her leadership talents and her “beautiful spirit,” Sister Francis Therese said. When Gerlach began to have health issues, she wanted Francis Therese to help with her care. She uses a feeding tube because her stomach is paralyzed after a botched surgery, and she uses a wheelchair because of her weak condition, Francis Therese said. Francis Therese said that on Jan. 2, Olson came to the monastery and asked the reverend mother to step down because of her health. “We told him, ‘Bishop, we don’t want her to step down,’” Francis Therese said. She said the bishop “goes in to a temper tantrum” when he’s told no. “The fact that I said no to him ticked him off,” she said.”
I am sure that did not go over well, but it stood out to me that Olson went to the monastery January 2nd asking the Prioress to step down. This is very shortly after the Prioress consulted Fr. Jonathan Wallis. It is my recollection that Wallis had a phone conversation with Gerlach on January 4th. Was that also recorded? This, too, is not a good look.
Fr. was clear to point out that his conversations were not under the seal of confession. Was RM aware of this? Fr. also lied on the witness stand by stating that her was not aware of her illness. How is that possible? Hundreds of other people were aware.
Confidentiallity was promised by the Bishop to RM on day one. Confidentiallity is also a Canon Law requirement form day one of the investigation. Did the Bishop purjure himself on the witness stand in playing recordings and making other statements?
The Prioress may only have had a paralyzed stomach when she was elected, but by the time the Bishop asked her to step down she’d had multiple seizures & multiple surgeries in addition & her health was clearly taking a turn for the worse. She herself admitted this going so far as to say her mind was “really messed up.” It is not unreasonable that the Bishop would be “ticked off” if she insisted on remaining an active Prioress under the *new* health circumstances. Yes, even if the whole monastery wanted her to remain Prioress. Can we blame the Bishop for thinking it might be time to intervene here?!
Probably moot at this point, but I disagree with you completely on this one. This decision is clearly one covered by the Monastery Constitutions and made in the community. Absolutely none of his business.
Maybe you know more about her health than I do, but it sounds like her health crisis that impaired her judgment came up rather suddenly, some time after her election, in November/ December. My pastor was out of commission with cancer for two years and was never asked to step down, thank goodness. Sickness is part of life. In any event, Mother consulted her spiritual director twice, just before Christmas regarding her now famous sin. He happens to be the Vicar for the diocese. January 2 Bishop shows up with his intervention and Wallis has another conversation with RM two days later. This is normally an exhaustingly busy time of year for bishops. Their motives are suspect.
Per the Prioress’ own words (see the infamous recording) the Vicar is not her spiritual director - she named someone else as holding that role. The Vicar is simply someone she chose to tell her sin to outside the confessional, on multiple
Occasions & sometimes while others were present. Anyway, the point is he wasn’t her spiritual director breaking confidence.
P Rubric wrote above that he was. On the tape she did mention a current spiritual director as of late April, and something about him being unavailable at that moment due to a personal matter, and another priest helping her with psychological counseling. I really cannot stomach listening to it. I feel like I am violating her.
I did go back and read the interview with Sr Francis Therese. She said that RMs condition should have been obvious to him because “he’s known her for years.” Still looks like a serious breach of trust.
The Bishop entered the Monastery on April 25, and confiscated Rev. Mother's laptop phones etc. The Bishop started a canonical investigation into ONLY Rev
Mother ( and told her the investigation would remain private as required by Cannon Law). The Bishop cancelled the priest rotation, said Mass for two days, no Mass for two days, and Mass on Sunday April 30, Mass was only on Sundays after April 30.
The nuns filed a lawsuit on May 3, to request a Judge grant a hearing on the return of their property which contained personal, and Monastery information for receipt of donations, payment of bills etc. The Judge said by Texas law the equipment had to be returned. Email sent to the priests informing them not to visit the Monastery for Mass. The Bishop sent the recently ordained priest he recently traveled to India with to say Mass for the nuns. Why would the whole Community have to suffer for a single nun around the Sacraments. He sent information to the priests and the faithful regarding Rev. Mother's violation of the 6th commandment. The press pounced on it!
I appreciate your response, and I believe the Nun’s version of events. But this latest action is playing right into the Bishop’s hands and plan. I don’t know what their alternatives would be. The Vatican might never rule on the appeal, leaving the Chapter imprisoned under the conditions you and they describe until they fall apart. I have to say, I am triggered every time someone cites that appalling recording as an indication of Bishop Olson’s magnanimity. It completely supports the Nun’s story that they believed they had a good relationship with the Bishop and the Diocese up until then. They were blindsided by that interrogation and confiscation of phones and computers, violating the enclosure to do so. They did not consent to the recording, and it’s release violates any sense of human decency. Of course he didn’t record his temper tantrum. Every restriction he has imposed since that tantrum validates the Nun’s version. But this latest action deprives them of the few rights they still had. Perhaps they should sell and move. Lord have mercy.
I’m surprised that someone would use the inflammatory statement of “how can the Church justify the cruelty from a troubled bishop” apply to the rights and duties of the bishop’s office to respond to a scandal in diocese that the bishop is responsible. Obviously, if there is a scandal in the jurisdiction of the diocese church officials need to involve themselves in administering a remedy. This action must fall on the bishops office whether he be a saint or sinner. Who are we to judge? Perhaps we should pray, instead of making such judgments.
The naked cynicism of aligning themselves with Vigano and choosing this moment to go "Hey everyone, guess what, we're trad now!" is breathtaking. Like being caught as a serial sexual harasser and waxing poetic about cancel culture. I believe the next step in the playbook is an interview with Taylor Marshall and a prominent GoFundMe. Maybe a paid speaking gig at some event held by the so-called Coalition for Cancelled Priests. Either way, the next step is money.
This whole story--a bishop seeming to overstep his bounds to come after a sick nun with the apparent support of the Vatican, followed by a hard turn into right wing culture war victimization by the convent--feels like an incredibly dark satire. God help us.
Seems like there is a fair amount of that going around. From the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly to the Synodal Way to the Diocese of Ahiara back in 2012-2018 (whose priests eventually got their way in the form of a bishop from their own tribe, even after being threatened with suspension and/or excommunication). Meanwhile the SSPX have been in "irregular communion" for about 40 years and they're doing better than ever.
I think the Church since Vatican II has wisely learned from the Orthodox that schism isn't something to treat as a really big deal. Witness the weird dichotomy wherein a person who mostly rejects the pope's authority is a schismatic, but a person who wholly rejects it is a "separated brother in Christ". Francis and Benedict both referred to Patriarch Bartholomew as their "brother" and "Andrew". Pope Tawadros II celebrated the Divine Liturgy at Saint Peter's earlier this year. We cannot allege that these men are somehow "invincibly ignorant" as the old catechetical materials would put it, so the only conclusion is that schism (to greater and lesser degrees) just a reality in the life of the Church and accept that perfect unity in Christ won't exist until the Second Coming.
Schism strictly defined as "imperfect" or "impeded" communion does not imply heresy as some might "twin" the two.
Since popes and documents refer to the Eastern Orthodox Churches as "sister Churches" the only thing "missing" is the EO acceptance of total supremacy over the whole Church by the bishop of Rome. This is especially true as the papacy has "developed" into it's current manifestations with the pope having "universal, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction" over all the local Churches.
Rome has tolerated heresy, but not schism, the Orthodox have tolerated schism but not heresy (hence the many doctrinal canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church).
The SSPX are in schism, per the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. Even if the excommunication of their Bishops has been lifted, they will remain in Schism until they submit to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the Professio Fidei.
Canonically irregular in Latin means contrary to the regula, or rule of the Church. What it means is that the SSPX has no canonical status in the Church. If the SSPX has no canonical status, it means they are in schism. It's a euphemism similar to describing "separated brethren" for Protestants and Orthodox.
You've also expressed elsewhere the erroneous idea that if a group are in schism with the Church, they should have no holiness or grace or validity of Sacraments. This is a false understanding of ecclesiology. Everyone in schism with the Church, is lacking full communion with the Church, but still possesses partial communion by virtue of Baptism, with the degree of this communion depending on their whether they have correct governance and doctrine, and apostolic succession. This is why the Orthodox can have 7 valid Sacraments, why Protestant baptisms and marriages are usually valid, etc.
Why not? The SSPX is doing pretty well under Francis, despite being in "irregular communion" for 40 years. The priests of the Diocese of Ahiara refused to accept their bishop for five years until they finally got someone from their own tribe, and never suffered any consequences. The Coptic Pope Tawadros II leads a church that has been in schism for over 1500 years and he just celebrated Divine Liturgy at Saint Peter's earlier this year.
Presumably the nuns, who would own their land as a civil corporation. It would be highly unusual for the diocese to own it.
The Nuns own it… but then Rome made Bishop Olson the Nuns direct superior with authority to manage their assets, if I’m not mistaken.
Ecclesiastical authority, but that doesn't translate to civil authority. I know of one instance in which the prior of a monastery signed a civil contract that, canonically speaking, he didn't have the power to sign (his provincial should have been the one to approve it). Nevertheless, the community was bound by it, because US civil law is not bound by canon law.
Should be interesting to see what happens then.
Unfortunately this is not correct.
As Commissary, the Bishop has no involvement in financial or property assets.
This was also the case before he found someone in Rome to make him Commissary. He was not made Commissary by the Cardinal Prefect, but an Archbishop with a history of closing Monasteries in Europe. In our Church men get to make all the rules and break all the rules. Bishop Hubbard who died today is exhibit #1
The whole Commissary commission looks pretty sketchy, it’s true. But regardless, it happened. And it holds weight because the Church has the authority to do it. The Church is the Body of Christ & sometimes the Body of Christ dying. We have to honor that or Catholicism becomes civil and democratic vs Apostolic.
It’s a complicated process, but the distribution of assets is covered by Canon law if the monastery were suppressed, and the Vatican could include the diocese in the distribution. These Nuns are not getting good advice. I do think they have been abused; they enjoyed a great deal of autonomy and the respect and spiritual support from laity and the Diocese for many years. They seem to be truly caught off guard, as they say, and reacting under the pressure of this imposed isolation and humiliation.
so the nuns are traddies now, under Archbishop Vigano's mitre. nice, definitely not schismatic in any way
I will ask St. Therese of Lisieux to pray for Archbishop Vigano's repentance; she prayed for Hyacinthe Loyson to repent, seems like this would be in her wheelhouse.
While I was thinking of it yesterday, I asked her to pray also for that bishop who attempted marriage and had a stroke, although I did not think at the time that it was urgent. But I guess it was.
This doesn’t make them “traddies”. Vigano is not traditional in any way. He is more loved by Trumpists and the Church Militant crowd than anyone else.
Your post is a bit insulting and not an accurate representation of people who attend the TLM.
sounds like you missed this part of the article:
<<In their Aug. 18 statement, the nuns said they have also made some liturgical changes at their monastery.
“In order to better render glory to God and “more profoundly to enter into the contemplation of His Sacred Mysteries,” the nuns said they have decided “to celebrate the Sacred Liturgy, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Divine Office, the sacraments, sacramentals and other rites according to the older forms of the Roman rite according to the traditional Discalced Carmelite usages.”>>
but yes, Vigano is a traditionalist. you don't get to exclude him from that identifier just because you don't like him. there is a significant overlap between traditionalists and support for Trump, and Church Militant is also a semi-traditionalist group- its opposition to some other traditionalist groups does not change that.
I did miss that part, I apologize.
Still, I would not consider Vigano a traditionalist. As far as I know he has only even celebrated the TLM a handful of times and seemed to start doing so only as recently as 2020.
Sure, there is some overlap as there is usually overlap between many groups in an organization as big as the universal church.
I can assure you Vigano and Church Militant are not popular in any TLM circle of which I’ve ever been a part.
I would ask you to consider that your original tone is still not charitable calling them “traddies” as an insult and lumping that group in with Vigano as if we all love Vigano.
In my view, “Traddies” represent a certain flavor of traditionally-minded individual. Certainly not all who attend TLM. Personally I would describe the term as describing someone more willing to trust their own informed-by-tradition concept of Catholicism over the current Church hierarchy’s. They may even be right in their critique… but they need to remain obedient. Obedience is a deeper tradition of the Church even than the traditions they hold most dear. “Christ was obedient unto death, even death on a Cross. Therefore God highly
exalted Him…” Perhaps forgetting that Christ’s obedience ended in His death, however, traddies seem to be justifying themselves as “martyrs” for resisting the guidance of their ‘modernist’ but legitimate Church leadership. And, yes, Vigano is very much a “traddie”
in this sense. Perhaps look up Taylor Marshall on YouTube to get up to speed.
Oh I’m well familiar with Taylor Marshall and his nonsense.
I don’t care for the term, but maybe it’s just me.
Brendan, I'm glad to hear how you approach the matters separating traditionalism from these problematic figures. Yet, I have to say you are probably the only one I've ever seen doing that. Not that my experience is vast and broad, but from where I sit, being a traditionalist embraces all the weirdness this thread mentions.. Would that it would not be so.
May I ask to what extent that experience is online vs in person?
I have been going almost exclusively to the TLM for years. I’ve certainly met my fair share of nutty people and the types of traditionalists Jen and Joseph are talking about. But they are a minority in my experience.
I’ve also met my fair share of Novus Ordo Catholics that use contraception and think two men should be able to marry. The issue I have with Joseph’s comment is he uses the term “traddy” to make us “other” and lumps us all together. We ought to acknowledge that within different “groups” of the church there are different issues and levels of heterodoxy. I don’t think it’s accurate or fair to paint traditionalists as the biggest problem, and Joseph seems to constantly do that.
They are a minority, but they sure seem to like to hop on YouTube and make videos / blast messages…
Obedience is better than sacrifice 1 Sam 15:22
Vigano in his screed on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he called Moscow the Second Rome and basically the screed was lifted from the esoterist Dugin. Some schismatic cultic religious houses follow him, but they're nothing of note.
This was definitely a strange development.
A Christian who mostly rejects the authority of the pope or local bishop is a "schismatic". A Christian who completely rejects their authority is a "separated brother in Christ". Hard to get to worked up about these things, tbh.
we are all schismatics. just some of us are stupider schismatics than others
New Mass traddies. I suppose it's a contextual, situational schism brought on by their relationship with their bishop.
I had been saying all along that this monastery was likely to be shut down by the Vatican, and I guess they will be cut loose in a slightly different way (declared cut off from the Church instead of suppressed).
I am curious about the civil legal situation here though. Does Bishop Olson or his representatives have the legal right to enter the monastery property? Before it seemed that he did when the nuns' civil suit failed, but I wonder if this declaration changes anything. If they are not officially part of the diocese, I'm not sure how a secular judge can find that the diocese has any authority over them. Unless the state recognizes the authority of Canon Law and the right of the Pope to ultimately control their order? It's an interesting situation due to the legal implications of this case.
"Bishop Olson asks the faithful of the Diocese of Fort Worth and all people of good will to pray for the Carmelites that they will stop their open disobedience."
This is a very reasonable request and I would have done it anyway. Like, yes, it is not fun to have a grown man yell at you or say rude things about you, but when this happens, maybe we think about the Passion (where Jesus put up with a lot of that, and so much more), instead of deciding to figuratively jump out of the plane without a parachute. I will ask St James and St John, "sons of thunder", to pray for them.
With regards to Bishop Olsen allegedly yelling at the nuns, that's what the nuns claimed, but unfortunately for them, there's an audio recording of the meeting. The bishop doesn't even raise his voice, and is calm and logical throughout.
Exactly. Their claim is currently as unsubstantiated at the Bishop’s drug pictures. Just
Chapter two of “he said, she said.”
Groan. The Nuns never claimed that he yelled during the initial interrogation when the Bishop showed up with his team and tape recorder. I find the recording unbearable to listen to again, but it made me more certain that the subsequent complaints of the Sisters are valid.
Do you remember which of their complaints it made more certain for you?
Yes, the complaints enumerated in the lawsuit. After the recording was played in court many critics claimed that the Sisters mischaracterized the Bishop’s behavior because he isn’t shouting on the tape. But the tape was made at the beginning of a three-day raid on the monastery where they said he took their devices, refused the Prioress’ choice of Canonist, sent one of his staff into the enclosure along with a forensic technician and insisted on questioning each of the sisters. He lost his temper when they refused to allow more questioning.
All of this was done before the Vatican retroactively granted authority. There is a lot of information out there. On the recording itself the Prioress is clearly welcoming the Bishop, clearly not expecting to be interrogated, and cooperative before the entire monastery was thrown into turmoil. Some commenters say he had the authority to do all of this. I am only saying that the the Nuns believed that the Bishop’s actions and the restrictions he placed on the Prioress were not, at the time, within the Bishop’s authority. It is documented on the tape that he imposed them. I am not a Canon lawyer, but I believe her rights were violated when the Bishop refused three of her choices and chose a Canon lawyer for her.
Yes and perhaps we may also reflect if the raised voice may be appropriate given the circumstances. I think all of us who are parents know that at times a firm word is warranted. To claim that a raised voice is ipso facto abuse comes off as Precious and Fragile on the Nuns’ part.
To use your analogy, a “firm word” followed by reading the errant adult child’s diary, locking her in her room with no dinner, forbidding the rest of the family to speak with her, taking her clothes, then kicking her out of the house, might cross the line into abuse.
Lol, undoubtedly. Especially taking away all her clothes. That would be bizaar.
And yet, if he dismissed her from the order, he effectively "took her clothes."
Honestly, when I read the newest statement the first thing that came to mind was Frank Pavone. Make of that what you will.
I wonder if people will finally consider the possibility that the person they’ve viewed as the victim in this situation could actually be a master manipulator.
Padre Pio’s superiors put unjust restrictions on him, but he obeyed them. The mark of holiness is obedience. These nuns should have followed the example of Padre Pio, but instead they have chosen to break from Holy Mother Church like the SSPX have. Bishop Olson may well have been abusing his authority, but what these nuns are doing is never legitimate or justified. We should pray for their repentance and their reconciliation with Holy Mother Church.
St. Damien of Molokai wasn't a shining example of obedience to his superiors. There were quite a few saints who didn't always comply eagerly with everything that was asked of them. But I think there is still a general trend of respect at least, if not mindless acquiescence to every order given.
To put it more clearly, I think there is a place for resistance and pushback, if it's justified and respectful--authority isn't ALWAYS right, and sometimes there are other spiritual goods to be considered, as in St. Damien's case where he had a duty as shepherd of the Molokai lepers--but this sort of flagrant disregard for the hierarchy in direct charge of them still looks pretty unreasonable.
Charity or love, not obedience, is held up as the highest of virtues in the New Testament. And when Christ was obedient to the point of death, that was ultimately to the Father's Will. The apostles gleefully disobeyed the Sanhedrin's injunction not to preach, didn't they?
Point taken. But a letter publicly stating their refusal to acknowledge a legitimate superior is still several steps beyond St. Damien having strong words with his superiors around allocating more resources to the lepars under his care.
Oh, absolutely!
apostles were not disobeying the Sanhedrin’s authority (men), since their authority came from God himself -Jesus.
Michael, with respect to you, my friend, is there no holiness in the Orthodox churches? Are they not replete with martyrs, mystics, and great saints of their own? Did not the 21 Coptic martyrs in Libya shed their blood for the word of God, despite being "disobedient" to the See of Rome? Has there not been a single holy Protestant? Holy Mother Church would not say or imply so, and neither should we?
There's a pretty big difference between those who "inherit" their schism, so to speak, and those who commit the act. And the catechism is very clear about that. Paragraph 818: "However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers..."
The previous paragraph, meanwhile, refers to the act as damnable.
So I don't think we can point to holy Orthodox or Protestants and just say "see, schism is no big deal."
Grace is a gift from God. If schism cut one off from the life of the Church, then holiness (a consequence of grace) could not follow.
How is the Holy Mother Church able to invite our separated brothers and sisters back into the fold if we hold such strong feelings of animosity, implying that they know full well what they are doing by their separation resulting from their cultural heritage. It takes time to convince and persuade towards the truth, using reason in the faith. The virtue of humility should moderate those who profess to be righteous in their cause. Obedience to proper authority will be noted more mercifully than self assurance of righteousness on these matters such as the witnesses of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Padre Pio as well as many many other pillars of the faith. Please consider praying for the virtues necessary for holiness in these matters for them and for us.
Sadly, you're right.
But something is off on the Bishop's end.
Even if there were issues with the prioress and how the diocese handled that, this is beyond the pale. This will only end badly for the nuns.
With all the vile allegations against Catholic clergy, drug abuse has not been a prominently reported problem. It would not be surprising as drug consumption on an industrial scale has long been part of the gay scene. One of our local clergy, on top of his sexual misbehaviour and massive alcohol abuse, has been accused of using cocaine.
It is doubly bizarre to have drug consumption happen inside a convent, given the pious and well ordered image of such places. But that enclosed and private world offers protection for all kinds of misconduct.
Has anyone tried, “ChatGPT, please write me a lofty statement of condemnation that sounds like it was written by Archbishop Vigano”?
I’m sorry, but I often times wondered if our good Lord Jesus had many opportunities to laugh. And yet all my life I believe he was a master of good humor. Sometimes we take life a bit serious and cannot see the ironys’ that can lighten up our day. Thank you for reminding me that humor is an illuminating virtue indeed. Cheers!
To distance ones self from
abuse is one thing; to reject authority is another. A bold step & very sad. There seems to be a belief among certain traditionally-minded folks that God will not suffer His Church to endure mismanagement or leadership flavored with fallenness. I wonder if they have not read their Old Testament lately. Or their Church history. Vigano likening the Nuns to martyrs and rallying support for them against their Bishop seems vastly misguided in my view.
One last reflection - to accuse a Bishop of such major abuse is a big deal. Will the Nuns substantiate their claim with evidence, or will they sling out an accusation much like they and the Bishop have been doing since this all began? “He said, she said” chapter two, only now
with Archbishop V in the wings while Bishop O stands in his corner backed by the Pope…? I feel like I said this several months ago but it bears repeating: it’s a bad look.
The Vigano statement was published months ago, addressing the initial impasse. Truly unfortunate that the Nuns chose to invoke it now, indeed at all; not the best strategy to get the Pope on your side, but then the Carmelites are not necessarily up on current events.
But I accept their allegations of major abuse of authority; it is born out in the recording of the initiation of the three-day raid itself as well as the actions by the Bishop and Diocesan officials that followed. The Nuns have effectively been in prison since April. I also understand from experience (as an advocate for religious) that the Vatican might choose not to respond to the appeal and allow the Chapter to die a slow death, cut off from their lay supporters and their choice of priests to administer the sacraments. If Archbishop Carballo was looking for a way to pounce on that land, the Nuns just handed it to him.
So… where are the other Carmels?
Monasteries of Carmelite nuns are autonomous. They have confederations for mutual support and coordination, but that's it.
Gotcha, and the confederation that this Carmel belongs to has nothing to say about the matter? Not even “no comment”?
I think they’re without a confederation. Some monasteries have chosen to be autonomous.
I have gone down a rabbit hole on the internet (a thread too old to be relevant but interesting to collectors of trivia) https://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/58540-the-discalced-carmelite-nuns-1990-amp-1991-constitutions/
What an unwise escalation of a bizarre contretemps! Still bewildered, but this sort of thing suggests too much isolation and too little (or just bad) formation.
Wow, interesting turn.
Bishop Olson appears to be vindicated with their turn to Vigano.
I don’t believe they turned to Vigano; he issued that statement months ago and they relied on its content, unfortunately. Vigano was actually a good Nuncio. Like so many in the Church who are languishing under the weight of other’s bad decisions, he is lashing out, at times destructively.
The nuns have suffered greatly under this Bishop since, April. Mass was allowed after Rev. Mother was dismissed from the the Carmelite order on June 1,2023. However, the priest and the Director of Diocesan Security have arrived each morning through August18. No homily was provided at these Masses not even on Sunday ( as required by Cannon Law). Lay faithful have not been allowed on property since April 25/26. How does the Church justify this cruelty from a documented troubled Bishop. Why is the entire Community suffering for a confidential matter between a single nun and Rome? This is a disaster for the Church, and demonstrates the mistreatment of women religious by the hierarchy.
Yet, the former Bishop of Albany ( see his story on pillarcatholic) can receive last rights as Bishop emeritus, while under investigation for sexual abuse, and who recently entered into a civil marriage with a woman. Where is justice in our Church?
Don’t forget that it was the Nuns themselves who first made this “private matter” public by getting the press involved. I don’t deny mishandling by the Bishop, but the Nuns substantially fed the dumpster fire too.
Sorry but that is not the case. The Bishop sent out a letter to all the priests first, followed by a letter to the Diocesan faithful putting her private matter on blast! ( stating she broke the sixth commandment) Check the Diocesan website it's all there. Please only deal will facts. You're statement is false.
The Nuns blasted all their donors with a shaming statement about the Bishop days before the Bishop posted or wrote anything. I’m extremely aware of the facts.
What's really going on here? If you can't believe in the truth why continue to post false statements. You are aware of only what you choose. Facts do not seem to be on the menu. You have every right to support the Bishop, however facts are facts.
Jen, I am in this diocese and know some of the Carmelite supporters. I did not hear a word of what was going on at the convent until the Bishop put it on the diocesan website and the media picked it up. Now, that's just my experience, but most of my faithful, Catholic friends heard about this the same way. And those who knew something didn't say anything until after the media stories started coming out. No one was surprised at the bishop's actions since this is the way he operates all the time. I am sorry for the sisters; I don't think this is the best way, but I deeply sympathize with their plight. If you go to the Laity In Unity petition for an apostolic visitation, many of the signers have personally witnessed his excellency lose his temper in public. He is reported to have said to one group "I am the shepherd, you are just the sheep." Pray for us in Fort Worth. We need a new bishop.
Yes I lived in your diocese for a very long time. I’m familiar with your Bishop’s reputation for a top-down style. He seems to have a particular affinity for writing letters & insisting they be read from the pulpit, and for publicizing problems. Comes off as a bit intense, perhaps, esp in current times when we expect men to be less authorian and more mellow. But it still doesn’t make the nuns right to divest themselves of Olson’s authority. I don’t deny they should do *something*; I really think this was the wrong something.
This does not change my view that this latest statement was a mistake, but there was an interview in the July 31 issue of the Star-Telegram with the Nun who is caregiver for the Prioress. I found it enlightening. The Nuns had dropped the appeal of the civil action in order to allow the canonical appeal to proceed. It seems they hoped this would cause the Bishop to ease up on the restrictions affecting the entire community. That did not happen.
Here is a tidbit:
“The sisters elected Gerlach as reverend mother two years ago because of her leadership talents and her “beautiful spirit,” Sister Francis Therese said. When Gerlach began to have health issues, she wanted Francis Therese to help with her care. She uses a feeding tube because her stomach is paralyzed after a botched surgery, and she uses a wheelchair because of her weak condition, Francis Therese said. Francis Therese said that on Jan. 2, Olson came to the monastery and asked the reverend mother to step down because of her health. “We told him, ‘Bishop, we don’t want her to step down,’” Francis Therese said. She said the bishop “goes in to a temper tantrum” when he’s told no. “The fact that I said no to him ticked him off,” she said.”
I am sure that did not go over well, but it stood out to me that Olson went to the monastery January 2nd asking the Prioress to step down. This is very shortly after the Prioress consulted Fr. Jonathan Wallis. It is my recollection that Wallis had a phone conversation with Gerlach on January 4th. Was that also recorded? This, too, is not a good look.
Great comments Emily!
Some additional facts about Fr.Jonathan Wallis.
He was Rev Mother's spiritual director this year.
Fr. was clear to point out that his conversations were not under the seal of confession. Was RM aware of this? Fr. also lied on the witness stand by stating that her was not aware of her illness. How is that possible? Hundreds of other people were aware.
Confidentiallity was promised by the Bishop to RM on day one. Confidentiallity is also a Canon Law requirement form day one of the investigation. Did the Bishop purjure himself on the witness stand in playing recordings and making other statements?
Yes not a good look indeed.
The Prioress may only have had a paralyzed stomach when she was elected, but by the time the Bishop asked her to step down she’d had multiple seizures & multiple surgeries in addition & her health was clearly taking a turn for the worse. She herself admitted this going so far as to say her mind was “really messed up.” It is not unreasonable that the Bishop would be “ticked off” if she insisted on remaining an active Prioress under the *new* health circumstances. Yes, even if the whole monastery wanted her to remain Prioress. Can we blame the Bishop for thinking it might be time to intervene here?!
Probably moot at this point, but I disagree with you completely on this one. This decision is clearly one covered by the Monastery Constitutions and made in the community. Absolutely none of his business.
Maybe you know more about her health than I do, but it sounds like her health crisis that impaired her judgment came up rather suddenly, some time after her election, in November/ December. My pastor was out of commission with cancer for two years and was never asked to step down, thank goodness. Sickness is part of life. In any event, Mother consulted her spiritual director twice, just before Christmas regarding her now famous sin. He happens to be the Vicar for the diocese. January 2 Bishop shows up with his intervention and Wallis has another conversation with RM two days later. This is normally an exhaustingly busy time of year for bishops. Their motives are suspect.
Per the Prioress’ own words (see the infamous recording) the Vicar is not her spiritual director - she named someone else as holding that role. The Vicar is simply someone she chose to tell her sin to outside the confessional, on multiple
Occasions & sometimes while others were present. Anyway, the point is he wasn’t her spiritual director breaking confidence.
P Rubric wrote above that he was. On the tape she did mention a current spiritual director as of late April, and something about him being unavailable at that moment due to a personal matter, and another priest helping her with psychological counseling. I really cannot stomach listening to it. I feel like I am violating her.
I did go back and read the interview with Sr Francis Therese. She said that RMs condition should have been obvious to him because “he’s known her for years.” Still looks like a serious breach of trust.
The bishop didn't say a word until the press started asking about the lawsuit filed by the nuns.
The Bishop entered the Monastery on April 25, and confiscated Rev. Mother's laptop phones etc. The Bishop started a canonical investigation into ONLY Rev
Mother ( and told her the investigation would remain private as required by Cannon Law). The Bishop cancelled the priest rotation, said Mass for two days, no Mass for two days, and Mass on Sunday April 30, Mass was only on Sundays after April 30.
The nuns filed a lawsuit on May 3, to request a Judge grant a hearing on the return of their property which contained personal, and Monastery information for receipt of donations, payment of bills etc. The Judge said by Texas law the equipment had to be returned. Email sent to the priests informing them not to visit the Monastery for Mass. The Bishop sent the recently ordained priest he recently traveled to India with to say Mass for the nuns. Why would the whole Community have to suffer for a single nun around the Sacraments. He sent information to the priests and the faithful regarding Rev. Mother's violation of the 6th commandment. The press pounced on it!
Who again, did you say started this travesty?
( all facts found in the public domain)
I appreciate your response, and I believe the Nun’s version of events. But this latest action is playing right into the Bishop’s hands and plan. I don’t know what their alternatives would be. The Vatican might never rule on the appeal, leaving the Chapter imprisoned under the conditions you and they describe until they fall apart. I have to say, I am triggered every time someone cites that appalling recording as an indication of Bishop Olson’s magnanimity. It completely supports the Nun’s story that they believed they had a good relationship with the Bishop and the Diocese up until then. They were blindsided by that interrogation and confiscation of phones and computers, violating the enclosure to do so. They did not consent to the recording, and it’s release violates any sense of human decency. Of course he didn’t record his temper tantrum. Every restriction he has imposed since that tantrum validates the Nun’s version. But this latest action deprives them of the few rights they still had. Perhaps they should sell and move. Lord have mercy.
I’m surprised that someone would use the inflammatory statement of “how can the Church justify the cruelty from a troubled bishop” apply to the rights and duties of the bishop’s office to respond to a scandal in diocese that the bishop is responsible. Obviously, if there is a scandal in the jurisdiction of the diocese church officials need to involve themselves in administering a remedy. This action must fall on the bishops office whether he be a saint or sinner. Who are we to judge? Perhaps we should pray, instead of making such judgments.
The naked cynicism of aligning themselves with Vigano and choosing this moment to go "Hey everyone, guess what, we're trad now!" is breathtaking. Like being caught as a serial sexual harasser and waxing poetic about cancel culture. I believe the next step in the playbook is an interview with Taylor Marshall and a prominent GoFundMe. Maybe a paid speaking gig at some event held by the so-called Coalition for Cancelled Priests. Either way, the next step is money.
This whole story--a bishop seeming to overstep his bounds to come after a sick nun with the apparent support of the Vatican, followed by a hard turn into right wing culture war victimization by the convent--feels like an incredibly dark satire. God help us.
Seems like there is a fair amount of that going around. From the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly to the Synodal Way to the Diocese of Ahiara back in 2012-2018 (whose priests eventually got their way in the form of a bishop from their own tribe, even after being threatened with suspension and/or excommunication). Meanwhile the SSPX have been in "irregular communion" for about 40 years and they're doing better than ever.
I think the Church since Vatican II has wisely learned from the Orthodox that schism isn't something to treat as a really big deal. Witness the weird dichotomy wherein a person who mostly rejects the pope's authority is a schismatic, but a person who wholly rejects it is a "separated brother in Christ". Francis and Benedict both referred to Patriarch Bartholomew as their "brother" and "Andrew". Pope Tawadros II celebrated the Divine Liturgy at Saint Peter's earlier this year. We cannot allege that these men are somehow "invincibly ignorant" as the old catechetical materials would put it, so the only conclusion is that schism (to greater and lesser degrees) just a reality in the life of the Church and accept that perfect unity in Christ won't exist until the Second Coming.
Schism strictly defined as "imperfect" or "impeded" communion does not imply heresy as some might "twin" the two.
Since popes and documents refer to the Eastern Orthodox Churches as "sister Churches" the only thing "missing" is the EO acceptance of total supremacy over the whole Church by the bishop of Rome. This is especially true as the papacy has "developed" into it's current manifestations with the pope having "universal, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction" over all the local Churches.
Rome has tolerated heresy, but not schism, the Orthodox have tolerated schism but not heresy (hence the many doctrinal canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church).
The SSPX are in schism, per the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. Even if the excommunication of their Bishops has been lifted, they will remain in Schism until they submit to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the Professio Fidei.
Canonically irregular in Latin means contrary to the regula, or rule of the Church. What it means is that the SSPX has no canonical status in the Church. If the SSPX has no canonical status, it means they are in schism. It's a euphemism similar to describing "separated brethren" for Protestants and Orthodox.
You've also expressed elsewhere the erroneous idea that if a group are in schism with the Church, they should have no holiness or grace or validity of Sacraments. This is a false understanding of ecclesiology. Everyone in schism with the Church, is lacking full communion with the Church, but still possesses partial communion by virtue of Baptism, with the degree of this communion depending on their whether they have correct governance and doctrine, and apostolic succession. This is why the Orthodox can have 7 valid Sacraments, why Protestant baptisms and marriages are usually valid, etc.