Bishop Schneider backs the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter smead2942
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting. They have a beautiful church near my old neighborhood. It has really grown the past 10 years to be able to remodel and enlarge their property. Their sacraments are not recognized by the Catholic church, correct?
 
7_Sorrows said:
Interesting. They have a beautiful church near my old neighborhood. It has really grown the past 10 years to be able to remodel and enlarge their property. Their sacraments are not recognized by the Catholic church, correct?
Click to expand...
I think it depends. Some of their bishops are validly ordained, and as such would be able to ordain priests capable of confecting the sacraments; however, they’ve also ordained several bishops invalidly, so they would not be able to ordain priests.

I’m pretty sure we’re barred from receiving sacraments from the SSPX except for in cases of extreme need (similar to our relationship with Orthodoxy, if I’m not mistaken.), but I don’t know if there’s been a blanket statement that their sacraments are always invalid.
 
As I understand it, because of their canonically irregular situation, priests of the SSPX (though validly ordained with the power to confect the Holy Eucharist and administer the Sacraments) do not have any jurisdiction. Therefore, (barring emergencies) they cannot hear valid confessions or perform marriages. But it is important to understand that the SSPX is not schismatic. The excommunications have been lifted. The situation remains confusing, but the proper way to refer to it seems to be “canonically irregular”. Personally, I fully support Bishop Schneider’s statements.
 
Interesting. Bishop Schneider seems to be a leader of the more Traditional minded Bishops in the Church. I like his proposal that a new syllabus of errors to help clarify and educate Catholics on what the 2nd Vatican Council really taught, as opposed to what some dissidents think it taught.
 
The SSPX must accept Papal Authority and come to terms with Vatican II before their status can be regularized.
 
7_Sorrows said:
Interesting. They have a beautiful church near my old neighborhood. It has really grown the past 10 years to be able to remodel and enlarge their property. Their sacraments are not recognized by the Catholic church, correct?
Click to expand...
Uhmm! not quite correct, recognized is not the proper word, let’s see first what they do not have

Their confession and absolution is not valid, Sacrament of penance.
They cannot validly and therefore Sacramentally Marry.
They cannot licitly ordain Bishops or Priests
They cannot confer the Sacrament of Confirmation.

They could illicitly confer Baptism but even an atheist can do that!

the only sacrament they have is a valid but illicit Eucharist.

Because Sacraments flow out of the Authority of Jesus given to the Church and to Peter in particular He gave the Keys to bind and loose. He alone has the power to declare someone in or out.

Now as for the laity that attends their services, they place themselves in schism with the Pope, but they think believe they are attending a “more traditional mass” how rational is that. To me that is no better than the cafeteria Catholic that rejects the Church on contraception, abortion or any other dogma.

What is sad is that perhaps the cafeteria’s one, does it out of ignorance, lack of Catechesis if you will. What is the excuse of the traditionalist?
To me it also denotes ignorance of Scripture and Church teaching.
Someone decided that they knew better than the Bishop of Rome and went the way of Luther. (No one wants to say that in the open) we all walk over egg shells trying to be charitable, but eventually someone needs to be humble enough to come out and say,

“Sorry I was in error I accept the authority of the Pope over the flock”. Handed out by Jesus Himself to Peter when he said 3 times to him “feed my lambs, feed my lambs, feed my sheep”.

3 is an important number in the Bible, is considered a number that represents GOD.
…
 
The question is long from being settled as another bishop has another view and give a word of caution

madisoncatholicherald.org/bishopscolumns/5803-society-of-st-pius-x.html

Also our Holy Father Benedict wrote on this matter in 2009:
The Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church…As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if the Church considers it a sin when SSPX Priest say Mass, hear confessions etc.

And would it be a sin for a Catholic to be a member of a SSPX parish while knowing of their status.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
I think it depends. Some of their bishops are validly ordained, and as such would be able to ordain priests capable of confecting the sacraments; however, they’ve also ordained several bishops invalidly, so they would not be able to ordain priests.

I’m pretty sure we’re barred from receiving sacraments from the SSPX except for in cases of extreme need (similar to our relationship with Orthodoxy, if I’m not mistaken.), but I don’t know if there’s been a blanket statement that their sacraments are always invalid.
Click to expand...
Here is a good overview on the SSPX from Bishop Morlino in a recent article…

madisoncatholicherald.org/bishopscolumns/5803-society-of-st-pius-x.html

edit…oops just noticed someone posted the same article above.
 
JerryZ said:
Uhmm! not quite correct, recognized is not the proper word, let’s see first what they do not have

Their confession and absolution is not valid, Sacrament of penance.
They cannot validly and therefore Sacramentally Marry.
They cannot licitly ordain Bishops or Priests
They cannot confer the Sacrament of Confirmation.

They could illicitly confer Baptism but even an atheist can do that!

the only sacrament they have is a valid but illicit Eucharist.

Because Sacraments flow out of the Authority of Jesus given to the Church and to Peter in particular He gave the Keys to bind and loose. He alone has the power to declare someone in or out.

Now as for the laity that attends their services, they place themselves in schism with the Pope, but they think believe they are attending a “more traditional mass” how rational is that. To me that is no better than the cafeteria Catholic that rejects the Church on contraception, abortion or any other dogma.

What is sad is that perhaps the cafeteria’s one, does it out of ignorance, lack of Catechesis if you will. What is the excuse of the traditionalist?
To me it also denotes ignorance of Scripture and Church teaching.
Someone decided that they knew better than the Bishop of Rome and went the way of Luther. (No one wants to say that in the open) we all walk over egg shells trying to be charitable, but eventually someone needs to be humble enough to come out and say,

“Sorry I was in error I accept the authority of the Pope over the flock”. Handed out by Jesus Himself to Peter when he said 3 times to him “feed my lambs, feed my lambs, feed my sheep”.

3 is an important number in the Bible, is considered a number that represents GOD.
…
Click to expand...
can you help me with the difference between valid and illicit as to the sacraments? Thanks.
 
FAB said:
The question is long from being settled as another bishop has another view and give a word of caution

madisoncatholicherald.org/bishopscolumns/5803-society-of-st-pius-x.html

Also our Holy Father Benedict wrote on this matter in 2009:
Click to expand...
As in the op article the mission was discreet so I would assume that Bishop Morlino was not aware of the meetings. Bishop Morlino’s statement was on the current status of the SSPX (although he did say the SSPX status is developing). Bishop Schneider’s statements in his interview are indeed hopeful.

btw…good things happening in Madison. 🙂
 
JerryZ said:
Their confession and absolution is not valid, Sacrament of penance.
They cannot validly and therefore Sacramentally Marry.
They cannot licitly ordain Bishops or Priests
They cannot confer the Sacrament of Confirmation. They can validly Confirm, but not licitly
They could illicitly confer Baptism but even an atheist can do that! This one is iffy, validity is certain, licitly depends on how one interprets Can 861.

the only sacrament they have is a valid but illicit Eucharist.No, see above. The ones they lack validitly for are Confession and Marriage…
…
Click to expand...
 
I think His Grace is on the right track.

A poster that asked the difference between valid and licit deserves an answer: a valid and licit sacrament is administered by a priest in good standing with the Holy Father, is authorised to administer said sacrament, and is able to do so with the blessing of the Church.

A valid sacrament can be administered by any priest that has been validly ordained by a validly consecrated bishop.

But, a priest not in good standing, who has been stripped of his rights to administer certain sacraments by his local Ordinary or the Holy Father, yet continues to administer the sacrament, is doing it illicitly, outside the bounds of his reach.

Regarding the SSPX, their sacraments are valid but not licit. But they are the “next best thing” in the case of an emergency, and I see no reason why the SSPX cannot be received and regularised as they are as His Grace reports.
 
40.png
Brendan:
No, some sacraments flow out of the authority given by the Church to administer them, in other words what the Church permits the Bishop and his Priests to perform.

Absolution for example flows from the Bishop to the priest. But the Bishop needs to have authority over a congregation in order to be the shepherd for it. And by extension the Bishop authorizes his Priests to serve his congregation.

SSPX Bishops lack this. They operate illicitly in another’s Bishop diocese.
Therefore the SSPX Bishop CANNOT validly confirm anyone in another Bishop’s congregation. Unless the valid Bishop authorizes the SSPX Bishop to do so.

As i stated the only Sacrament a SSPX priest CAN validly perform is the consecration of the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist. It is the real presence of Jesus because that Sacrament flows from the valid ordination of that priest (Holy Orders).
It is illicit however for the same reason presented above. That priest is offering the Eucharist to a flock that does not belong to him.

…
 
JerryZ said:
Absolution for example flows from the Bishop to the priest. But the Bishop needs to have authority over a congregation in order to be the shepherd for it. And by extension the Bishop authorizes his Priests to serve his congregation.
Click to expand...
For a priest that is true, but not for a bishop. In much the same why that the ability to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass is intrinsic to the priesthood ( and thus why the SSPX priest may validity confect the Eucharist), the ability to Confirm and Ordain is intrinsic to the Order of Bishops. It is part of who they are.

We can see that in Canon 886
§2. To administer confirmation licitly in another diocese, a bishop needs at least the reasonably presumed permission of the diocesan bishop unless it concerns his own subjects.
Click to expand...
Note that the term used in Canon law is licitly, not validly.

The Confirmation by an SSPX bishop fails the test of 886, in that they did not have the permission of the local Ordinary, so the Confirmation is illicity. But not invalid.

Absolution and the witnessing of Marriages are juricial acts, those DO require licence to be performed validly

We see that, for example, in Canon 966
Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.
Click to expand...
Note there, the term used is VALID absolution.

The priest (or bishop) of the SSPX fails Canon 966 in that, while their ordination is valid, the faculty for execution is missing.

So THAT Sacrament is invalid

here is a breakdown on which Sacraments are Canonically valid by the SSPX

canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/08/01/are-sspx-sacraments-valid-part-i/
 
Thanks to all who answered my question about validity and being ilicit. I believe I understand the difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top