Article on Communion in Hand by SSJV

[Iohannes]

The SSJV got their apostolic Adminstration because they did not capitulate to the indult. They demanded more and they got more in the end. None of their priest need any permission for the TLM. They can say it anywhere and whenever they want. I may be able to contact with the priest who dealt directly with Campos reconcillation.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Iohannes:

You just made my point they are not schismatic, if the marriages were validated from the point of their celebration.

Yet you have not addressed the issue of confession and simony.

Bishop Fellay, SSPX himself said that Rome does not view the SSPX as schismatic. This is from Bishop Fellay himself, unless he is a liar.

That would be reading an awful lot into this. The sanation was required because the marriages were otherwise invalid due to lack of form (the priests were suspended *a divinis *and, therefore, did not have faculties to witness a marriage. Once the reunion had taken place, the Church sanated the marriages to ensure that the people who may have innocently entered into a marriage with this group of priests were not punished.

As for the SSPX, Rome does, indeed, consider them to be in schism. There are numerous documents from Rome that indicate this to be the case.

Deacon Ed

 

[bear06]

Iohannes:

You just made my point they are not schismatic, if the marriages were validated from the point of their celebration.

Yet you have not addressed the issue of confession and simony.

Bishop Fellay, SSPX himself said that Rome does not view the SSPX as schismatic. This is from Bishop Fellay himself, unless he is a liar.

Here’s canon 1161. Emphasis mine.

Can. 1161 §1 The retroactive validation of an invalid marriage is its validation without the renewal of consent, granted by the competent authority. It involves a dispensation from an impediment if there is one and from the canonical form if it had not been observed, as well as a referral back to the past of the canonical effects. §2 The validation takes place from the moment the favour is granted; the referral back, however, is understood to have been made to the moment the marriage was celebrated, unless it is otherwise expressly provided.

 

[bear06]

Iohannes:

You just made my point they are not schismatic, if the marriages were validated from the point of their celebration.

Yet you have not addressed the issue of confession and simony.

Bishop Fellay, SSPX himself said that Rome does not view the SSPX as schismatic. This is from Bishop Fellay himself, unless he is a liar.

I forgot I did address, rather my canon lawyer friend addressed, the confession issue. Please read above.

I never asked about simony. Sorry. Maybe Deacon Ed can answer that one.

 

[bear06]

Iohannes:

You just made my point they are not schismatic, if the marriages were validated from the point of their celebration.

Yet you have not addressed the issue of confession and simony.

Bishop Fellay, SSPX himself said that Rome does not view the SSPX as schismatic. This is from Bishop Fellay himself, unless he is a liar.

What’s your definition of simony? I haven’t been able to find anything that I think applies to what you are saying so maybe I’m misunderstanding your definition of simony.

Thanks!

 

[Iohannes]

bear06:

What’s your definition of simony? I haven’t been able to find anything that I think applies to what you are saying so maybe I’m misunderstanding your definition of simony.

Thanks!

It is not my definition, but when money is collected at an “illicit” Mass, it constitutes simony.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Iohannes:

Bishop Fellay, SSPX himself said that Rome does not view the SSPX as schismatic. This is from Bishop Fellay himself, unless he is a liar.

So a bishop of the SSPX says that Rome does not view the SSPX as schismatic? Since when is this proof of anything?

Thats like asking a murderer if he broke the law, it doesn’t matter what his view of it is.

Bishop Fellay may not be a lair but he is a schismatic, as well as being excommunicated, and has a vested interest in making people think that his group is not schismatic.

 

[pnewton]

ByzCath:

So a bishop of the SSPX says that Rome does not view the SSPX as schismatic? Since when is this proof of anything?
.

Correct. Whether a group is in schism is a unilateral statement by the Holy Father. All other statements and opinions are irrelevant.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

bear06:

I forgot I did address, rather my canon lawyer friend addressed, the confession issue. Please read above.

I never asked about simony. Sorry. Maybe Deacon Ed can answer that one.

Okay, let’s break this down.

Marriage and Confession require faculties from the local authorities. If that is absent, the sacrament is not valid. The only exception to that is for cases where the penitient is in extremis (near death) in which case any priest, whether laicized, schismatic, suspended, etc. is obligated to hear the confession and, if possible, grant absolution. Because the SSJV was not in communion with Rome it had no local jurisdiction and, therefore the sacraments were not valid.

I haven’t followed the case closely enough to have any knowledge of cases of simony.

Deacon Ed

 

[Iohannes]

Deacon Ed:

Okay, let’s break this down.

Marriage and Confession require faculties from the local authorities. If that is absent, the sacrament is not valid. The only exception to that is for cases where the penitient is in extremis (near death) in which case any priest, whether laicized, schismatic, suspended, etc. is obligated to hear the confession and, if possible, grant absolution. Because the SSJV was not in communion with Rome it had no local jurisdiction and, therefore the sacraments were not valid.

I haven’t followed the case closely enough to have any knowledge of cases of simony.

Deacon Ed

The thing is that, they did not have to endure any penalties of a schism. All they did was regularized and everything was declared valid as if a schism had not happened.

It is kind of like an annulment, If a church declares an annulment, the marriage was never valid to begin with and they were never married at all, so there was never a period that they were married.

The interesting fact is that the Campos folks never changed their stances. Of course they accept that the Novus Ordo is valid and VII and Ecumenical council, so did Archbishop Lefebvre. Even the SSPX accepts the Novus Ordo when correctly celebrated to be valid.

This is getting way off topic.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Iohannes:

The thing is that, they did not have to endure any penalties of a schism. All they did was regularized and everything was declared valid as if a schism had not happened.

It is kind of like an annulment, If a church declares an annulment, the marriage was never valid to begin with and they were never married at all, so there was never a period that they were married.

The interesting fact is that the Campos folks never changed their stances. Of course they accept that the Novus Ordo is valid and VII and Ecumenical council, so did Archbishop Lefebvre. Even the SSPX accepts the Novus Ordo when correctly celebrated to be valid.

This is getting way off topic.

But this is not an annulment, it is a statement of communion that was entered into in 2002. From the time of their establishment until 2002 they were in schism. The Church, being the solicitous Mother that she is, has made marriages valid from the time of the exchange of vows to protect the innocent people who did not realize they were entering into invalid marriages.

Howewer, I agree that brining the SSPX into this is taking the topic far from its origins.

Deacon Ed

 

[Iohannes]

Deacon Ed:

But this is not an annulment, it is a statement of communion that was entered into in 2002. From the time of their establishment until 2002 they were in schism. The Church, being the solicitous Mother that she is, has made marriages valid from the time of the exchange of vows to protect the innocent people who did not realize they were entering into invalid marriages.

Howewer, I agree that brining the SSPX into this is taking the topic far from its origins.

Deacon Ed

That really does not make sense at all. The marriages are either valid from the beginning or not valid at all. So when they were married, it was a valid marriage because the SSJV are not in schism. You cannot have a marriage one time invalid and be made valid again. If any sacrament was invalid, it would be for eternity. A priest told me that.

 

[Iohannes]

You cannot validate an invalid sacrament, either it was valid or invalid. Iicity only deals with the legal relationship.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Iohannes:

You cannot validate an invalid sacrament, either it was valid or invalid. Iicity only deals with the legal relationship.

Did you even read Can. 1161?

It says exactly the opposite of what you are saying here.

Again it says… (emphasis added)

Can. 1161 §1 The retroactive validation of an invalid marriage is its validation without the renewal of consent, granted by the competent authority. It involves a dispensation from an impediment if there is one and from the canonical form if it had not been observed, as well as a referral back to the past of the canonical effects.

§2 The validation takes place from the moment the favour is granted; the referral back, however, is understood to have been made to the moment the marriage was celebrated, unless it is otherwise expressly provided.

Or is it that you just disagree with this Canon so you are ignoring it?

 

[bear06]

Iohannes:

That really does not make sense at all. The marriages are either valid from the beginning or not valid at all. So when they were married, it was a valid marriage because the SSJV are not in schism. You cannot have a marriage one time invalid and be made valid again. If any sacrament was invalid, it would be for eternity. A priest told me that.

It would seem that your priest friend is incorrect. It may not make sense to you but that’s a long-standing practice of the Church. This is one of the things even SSPX understands.

 

[bear06]

Iohannes:

It is not my definition, but when money is collected at an “illicit” Mass, it constitutes simony.

Where are you getting this defintion from? I can only find this one:
newadvent.org/cathen/14001a.htm I can’t find anything resembling the definition you are giving.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Iohannes:

You cannot validate an invalid sacrament, either it was valid or invalid. Iicity only deals with the legal relationship.

One more time…what was missing was canonical form. The Church regulates that form. They can retroactively grant the dispensation which makes the marriage valid. This is what happened. Note that this would not be required *unless *the SSJV was not in communion with Rome. Because they were not in communion the marriages were defective because of lack of form. The radical sanation fixes this condition. Ask your priest about his understanding of “radical sanation” because it seems he has not considered that in his answer to you.

Deacon Ed

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bear06:

Well, they can err in disciplines, not in areas of faith and morals, but the fact is that it is the Pope’s jurisdiction to set the disciplines it’s not ours to say that some discipline is wrong. If this Pope wants to come along and change his discipline or another comes along to ban the discipline, so be it. It’s his jurisdiction. If you KNOW the discipline is a sin (an incredibly bold statement which is why many allude to it but won’t say it) then you cannot submit. If you roll that dice and you’re wrong the sin is yours. If you submit to the Pope, even if he be wrong in matters of discipline, then the sin is not yours but his. You can only go wrong if you follow your view of the situation.

bear06,
I have to disagree with you here.

I do not believe that the Church can ever teach nor endorse Sin.

What you are implying here is that the Church can teach and allow a discipline that is a Sin.

In the Byzantine Tradition, we believe that one can sin unknowingly, this is why in some of our prayers we ask for forgiveness for unknown sins.

For example… (underline added)

First Prayer of St. Basil the Great
Almighty Lord, God of the Powers and of all flesh, Who livest in the highest and carest for the humble, Who searchest our hearts and affections, and clearly foreknowest the secrets of men; eternal and everliving Light, in Whom is no change nor shadow of variation; O Immortal King, receive our prayers which at the present time we offer to Thee from unclean lips, trusting in the multitude of Thy mercies. Forgive all sins committed by us in thought, word or deed, consciously or unconsciously, and cleanse us

Prayer of St. Ephrem the Syrian****to the Most Holy SpiritO Lord, Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, have compassion and mercy on Thy sinful servant and pardon my unworthiness, and forgive me all the sins that I humanly committed today, and not only humanly but even worse than a beast - my voluntary sins, known and unknown, from my youth and from evil suggestions, and from my brazenness, and from boredom. If I have sworn by Thy Name or blasphemed it in thought, blamed or reproached anyone, or in my anger have detracted or slandered anyone, or grieved anyone, or if I have got angry about anything, or have told a lie, if I have slept unnecessarily, or if a beggar has come to me and I despised or neglected him, or if I have troubled my brother or quarrelled with him, or if I have condemned anyone, or have boasted, or have been proud, or lost my temper with anyone, or if when standing in prayer my mind has been distracted by the glamour of this world, or if I have had depraved thoughts or have overeaten, or have drunk excessively, or have laughed frivolously, or have thought evil, or have seen the attraction of someone and been wounded by it in my heart, or said indecent things, or made fun of my brother’s sin when my own faults are countless, or been neglectful of prayer, or have done some other wrong that I cannot remember - for I have done all this and much more - have mercy, my Lord and Creator, on me Thy wretched and unworthy servant, and absolve and forgive and deliver me in Thy goodness and love for men, so that, lustful, sinful and wretched as I am, I may lie down and sleep and rest in peace. And I shall worship, praise and glorify Thy most honourable Name, with the Father and His only-begotten Son, now and ever, and for all ages. Amen.

Not knowing it is a sin just mitigates the severity of the sin, not that it is a sin.

 

[bear06]

I was looking through some of my files and came across this which kind of explains my position a little better.

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4748

What it is basically saying is that while the Pope can err in matters of discipline, God may be allowing this to happen in accordance with his plans and it’s still not our jurisdiction. Nor is it our jurisdiction to judge this. This is solely the jurisdiction of whoever is the Pope at the time. Please read, great article from a great source.