Can anyone explain the logic behind the stance of SSPX?

[GerardP]

The filioque is not included in every form of the creed. To exclude it does not mean that one does not believe.

The Orthodox Patriarchs do not believe in it. For the Pope to put it aside is to engage in false eirenism condemned by Pius XII.

The pupose of the meeting and praying the creed between the Holy Father and the Patriarch was to teach Catholics and Orthodox Christians through example.

No. More likely it’s to form a phalanx and influence political policy.

What did they want to teach?

1. We are brothers and sisters, because we are sons and daughters of God.

Except one group doesn’t have the true faith.

1. We do have common beliefs and a common apostolic history.

And those without the full truth are in fatal error.

1. We are commanded to love and capable of it.

That was not taught in any explicit way or any particular implicit way. Handing a tissue to someone who sneezes does the same thing.

1. We can dialogue instead of war against each other.

Dialogue towards what? Cardinal Bea used to at least have the clarity of speech to say that conversion to the Catholic Church is the goal.

1. We can accept that there are differences between us that must be resolved, but that does not mean that we have to be antagonistic toward each other.

Flower power. The differences themselves are intrinsically antagonistic.

1. Antagonism is not going to resolve the differences between us

.

Pacifism in dialogue is not going to resolve them at all.

1. The world needs us to come together as a family.

No it doesn’t. Original sin prevents that from happening. It will only come together when gathered by Christ and He separates the wheat from the chaff forcibly.

1. There will be peace in the world if there is peace between Christians.

No there won’t. He told us, the world would hate us. If peace exists exclusively among Christians (which won’t happen till everyone is Catholic first.) Non-Catholics will persecute us.

1. We must treat each other with the same love and warmth as our leaders, despite our differences.

How about more love and warmth by not mincing words? The SSPX actually gets more respect from the Orthodox because they stick to tradition and they don’t engage in ambiguous language for some ill-defined “unity.”

1. Our differences have not been forgotten, the problem is that we fail to remember our common beliefs.

No. We obviously know our common beliefs. The problem is non-Catholics are wrong. Truth and error can’t co-exist in faith.

 

[bobzills]

As to whose authority, the answer is, the Pope’s. He is the official protector of the sacraments. Only he can define when a sacrament is celebrated validly or not.

JR

I see that this is your opinion. But where did the Pope officially declare that the Confessions and the marriages of the SSPX are not valid?

 

[catharina]

I’m sorry to tell you, but that is all false.

The Church supplies jurisdiction to any validly ordained priest who provides absolution to any Catholic who approaches them for any moral reason.

Marriages are valid if the proper form, matter and intention are manifested. Form is the exchange of vows, matter is the man and woman to be married and the intention is for the sacrament. The Church imposes the need for a witness in the form of a priest, but secret marriages in the past where no priest was present were declared valid.

The Pope has the power to alter the form of all sacraments except Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. But he does not have the power to validate and invalidate sacraments at his whim.

Radical sanations are simply canonical recognitions of what was already valid.

Canonical regulations insist that priests receive faculties from their responsible bishops.

From the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 974 §1 Neither the local Ordinary nor the competent Superior may, except for a grave reason, revoke the grant of a faculty habitually to hear confessions.
§2 If the faculty to hear confessions granted by the local Ordinary mentioned in can. 967 §2, is revoked by that Ordinary, the priest loses the faculty everywhere. If the faculty is revoked by another local Ordinary, the priest loses it only in the territory of the Ordinary who revokes it.
§3 Any local Ordinary who has revoked a priest’s faculty to hear confessions is to notify the Ordinary who is proper to that priest by reason of incardination or, if the priest is a member of a religious institute, his competent Superior.
§4 If the faculty to hear confessions is revoked by his own major Superior, the priest loses everywhere the faculty to hear the confessions of the members of the institute. But if the faculty is revoked by another competent Superior, the priest loses it only in respect of those subjects who are in that Superior’s jurisdiction.

Can. 975 Apart from revocation, the faculty mentioned in can. 967 §2 ceases by loss of office, by excardination, or by loss of domicile.

Can. 976 Any priest, even though he lacks the faculty to hear confessions, can validly and lawfully absolve any penitents who are in danger of death, from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.

Priests of sspx are reporting to excommunicated bishops who are unable to provide faculties.
In the event of a pentitent who is dying, any priest may absolve when appropriate.

 

[bobzills]

I’m sorry to tell you, but that is all false. .

this is somewhat confusing because these other posters are saying that according to the authority of the Pope, the confessions and the marriages of the SSPX are invalid.

 

[JReducation]

Disobedience is just that diobedience. Refusing the request of a superior. That is not schismatic and not heretical.

Rejecting the Papacy means saiying the the Pope has no lawful authority and rejecting the the dogma of Petrine primacy. It means rejecting the office of Pope entirely.

Lefebvre alway knew Pope John Paul had lawful authority, but he chose to disobey in favor of defending the Catholic faitth.

Use your reason.
If I disobey my father’s request to clean my room, all that is, is disobedience. I have not said this man is no longer my father. He is not my biological father so therfore I will leave the house.

It was not that Msgr. Lefebvre disobeyed, but what he disobeyed that got him into trouble.

The Pope is the sumpeme authority over the administration of the sacraments. It is his job to protect the sacraments. It is the bishops’ job to do so with him.

When a Pope issues an order regarding the administration of a sacrament, the bishops have a moral obligation to cooperate with him.

The sacraments are part of the deposit of faith. Therefore, the Pope, as the protector of the faith must also protect the sacraments from being abused.

When a bishop ordains other bishops, contrary to the Pope’s wishes, that bishop is no longer action in communion with the Pope. He has set himself up as his own Magisterium and has assumed the authority of determining that it is lawful to use his sacramental power (as a Bisop) to ordain other bishops, without the consent of the protector of the sacraments.

In essence, Archbishop Lefebvre allowed his conscience to become the supreme arbiter over how the Sacrament of Holy Orders was to be confirmed, upon whom it should be confirmed and under what circumstances it should be confirmed.

This constitutes a grave sin, because the matter is grave. The administration of the Sacraments is grave matter. There was prior knowledge that this was grave matter. The Archbishop was a very intelligent man. As an Archbishop, he has performed many ordinations for which he had asked for permission. There is freedom in his choice. Because if in previous cases he had asked for permission to ordain bishops, to suddenly change his modus operandi, was a choice, not an impulsive and uncontrollable act of human.

We’re not talkng about disobedience. The word is tossed about, because it’s easier to summarize the whole event with one word. But the fact is that we’re talking about the abuse of his own sacramental power as a bishop. A bishop has the power to ordain other bishops, but not the authority to choose who, when, where and why.

He chose to change his own usual and customary behaviour. This implies full consent to an action that was gravely sinful.

JR

 

[bobzills]

It was not that Msgr. Lefebvre disobeyed, but what he disobeyed that got him into trouble.

Yes, I understand that he disobeyed concerning the clown Masses, He would not go along with clowns at the Mass.

 

[BrendanD]

The only way to validate the absolutions would be for the Pope to absolve all those people who confessed to SSPX priest when they had no faculties. If this were to happen, then the person giving the absolution is the Pope, the individual priest who heard the confession.

This is (heretical) nonsense. A penitent must be in the physical presence of the priest administering the sacrament of confession to receive absolution. The Pope can not do some blanket absolution of people that are not in his physical presence.

Further, when the Society of St. John Mary Vianney (who were in exactly the same position as the SSPX) was regularized, no such thing was done. The confessions of the faithful did not have to be heard again, nor did the Pope do some special absolution for them.

1. Marriage: the SSPX priests do not have faculties to witness marriages. If they are given faculties, only those marriages that they witness after receiving faculties are valid.

The Church accepted the validity of marriages performed by the Society of St. John Mary Vianney, who had exactly the same faculties as the SSPX. Their marriages did not have to be convalidated. The ceremony did not have to be repeated.

Under the Petrine privilege the Pope can declare valid any marriage, within or outside of the Catholic Church that meets the conditions for a valid marriage.

That’s not what Petrine Privilege means. Also, a marriage that meets the conditions for a valid marriage is already valid. It doesn’t need to be “declared” valid-- it already is.

 

[JReducation]

I’m sorry to tell you, but that is all false.

The Church supplies jurisdiction to any validly ordained priest who provides absolution to any Catholic who approaches them for any moral reason.

Marriages are valid if the proper form, matter and intention are manifested. Form is the exchange of vows, matter is the man and woman to be married and the intention is for the sacrament. The Church imposes the need for a witness in the form of a priest, but secret marriages in the past where no priest was present were declared valid.

The Pope has the power to alter the form of all sacraments except Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. But he does not have the power to validate and invalidate sacraments at his whim.

Radical sanations are simply canonical recognitions of what was already valid.

You will have to take it up with the Ecclesia Dei Commission. They have already said that the absolutions and the marriages within the SSPX are not valid, because the priests are suspended.

A suspended priest cannot validly absolve or witness a marriage.

The faculties that the Church gives to any priest is only if the priest is in good standing with the Church.

Even if there is a moral reason, a suspended priest cannot offer absolution unless there is the danger of death or there is no other priest to hear the confession.

If a person walks in off the street to an SSPX chapel, unless he’s in immediate danger of death, there is no moral reason. There are plenty of priests with faculties in other parishes, chaplaincies, religious houses and so forth.

As to wedding, we already established that the couple is the minister of marriage and that the Vatican can issue a sanation.

If any suspended priest could offer absolution, then all those priests who went to jail for child abuse and other reasons, could become the prison chaplains. They are priests for life. But they can’t do it, because they are suspended and some are excommunicated.

JR

 

[BrendanD]

You will have to take it up with the Ecclesia Dei Commission. They have already said that the absolutions and the marriages within the SSPX are not valid, because the priests are suspended.

Why don’t you show us where they said that? Because they never have.

A suspended priest cannot validly absolve or witness a marriage.

As to wedding, we already established that the couple is the minister of marriage and that the Vatican can issue a sanation.

You are in disagreement with the Magisterium of the Church. The Church recognized the validity of the marriages witnessed by suspended priests of the Society of St. John Vianney. No sanation was done.

 

[GerardP]

Priests of sspx are reporting to excommunicated bishops who are unable to provide faculties.

They are not reporting to bishops. Only bishop Fellay has any authority and only because of his election. Fr. Schmidberger was the previous Superior. Fr. Fullerton is the Superior in the U.S.

Faculties have never been claimed by the SSPX. And since they’ve never been claimed, they’ve never been revoked.

From John Salza’s article:

Further, Canon 1335 provides that where a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition on celebrating the sacraments is suspended **whenever a member of the faithful
requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance “for any just cause.” **As applied here, John Paul II did not declare a latae sententiae excommunication against SSPX priests. Thus,
assuming SSPX priests are suspended, they are nevertheless allowed to celebrate the sacraments Further, Canon 1335 provides that where a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition on celebrating the sacraments is suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance “for any just cause.” As applied here,
John Paul II did not declare a latae sententiae excommunication against SSPX priests. Thus, assuming SSPX priests are suspended, they are nevertheless allowed to celebrate the sacraments.

And also on the broader principals at work:

We must also remember that canon law is not the only law of the Church that applies to situations like this. There are traditional, ecclesiastical and hierarchical laws, and even the general
principles of law (virtue of equity, epikeia), that are fundamental and divine, even if not written down (see canon 19). All these laws are ordered to the supreme law: salus animarum suprema lex.
Man has an obligation to save his soul, and thus has a right to receive the means of salvation.While the law of receiving jurisdiction from the hierarchy is a divine law, it is subordinated to the
superior law of exercising the priestly ministry. When there is a conflict, the superior law must prevail over the inferior law, which is why ecclesia supplet exists. A man’s right to receive the
means of salvation should never be limited by positive law, for in such cases, “the letter killeth” (2 Cor 3:6). This is why the Church can fulfill what the hierarchy does not do through supplied
jurisdiction. Mother Church does not abandon her children, even when the hierarchy does.

 

[catharina]

This is (heretical) nonsense. A penitent must be in the physical presence of the priest administering the sacrament of confession to receive absolution. The Pope can not do some blanket absolution of people that are not in his physical presence.

Further, when the Society of St. John Mary Vianney (who were in exactly the same position as the SSPX) was regularized, no such thing was done. The confessions of the faithful did not have to be heard again, nor did the Pope do some special absolution for them.

The Church accepted the validity of marriages performed by the Society of St. John Mary Vianney, who had exactly the same faculties as the SSPX. Their marriages did not have to be convalidated. The ceremony did not have to be repeated.

That’s not what Petrine Privilege means. Also, a marriage that meets the conditions for a valid marriage is already valid. It doesn’t need to be “declared” valid-- it already is.

From the Code of Canon Law:

 Financial Assistance requested

The Code of Canon Law — 1983 Canons 959 - 991

THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

---

TITLE IV: THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE
Can. 959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a lawful minister, are sorry for those sins and have a purpose of amendment, receive from God, through the absolution given by that minister, forgiveness of sins they have committed after baptism, and at the same time they are reconciled with the Church, which by sinning they wounded.

Chapter 1

THE CELEBRATION OF THE SACRAMENT

Can. 960 Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the sole ordinary means by which a member of the faithful who is conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and with the Church. Physical or moral impossibility alone excuses from such confession, in which case reconciliation may be attained by other means also.

Can. 961 §1 General absolution, without prior individual confession, cannot be given to a number of penitents together, unless:
1° danger of death threatens and there is not time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;
2° there exists a grave necessity, that is, given the number of penitents, there are not enough confessors available properly to hear the individual confessions within an appropriate time, so that without fault of their own the penitents are deprived of the sacramental grace or of holy communion for a lengthy period of time. A sufficient necessity is not, however, considered to exist when confessors cannot be available merely because of a great gathering of penitents, such as can occur on some major feastday or pilgrimage.
§2 It is for the diocesan Bishop to judge whether the conditions required in §1, n. 2° are present; mindful of the criteria agreed with the other members of the Episcopal Conference, he can determine the cases of such necessity.

Can. 962 §1 For a member of Christ’s faithful to benefit validly from a sacramental absolution given to a number of people simultaneously, it is required not only that he or she be properly disposed, but be also at the same time personally resolved to confess in due time each of the grave sins which cannot for the moment be thus confessed.
§2 Christ’s faithful are to be instructed about the requirements set out in §1, as far as possible even on the occasion of general absolution being received. An exhortation that each person should make an act of contrition is to precede a general absolution, even in the case of danger of death if there is time.

Can. 963 Without prejudice to the obligation mentioned in can. 989, a person whose grave sins are forgiven by a general absolution, is as soon as possible, when the opportunity occurs, to make an individual confession before receiving another general absolution, unless a just reason intervenes.

 

[bobzills]

Canonical regulations insist that priests receive faculties from their responsible bishops. .

It still doesn’t specifically say that the confessions and marriages of the SSPX are invalid. You say that the Pope is the final authority, but I don;'t see where the Pope has said that. This is your private and personal interpretation of certain rules and regulations. Are you a canon lawyer? What education do you have in canon law to make the authoritative decision that the confessions and marriages of the SSPX are not valid. My understanding is that there are experts in canon law who disagree with you. |Where is the reference to an authoritative document issued by the Pope where he specifically states that the marriages and the confessions of the SSPX are invalid and that supplied jurisdiction does not apply in this case.

 

[BrendanD]

From the Code of Canon Law:

I am aware of general absolution. But that’s not what JREducation described-- a blanket absolution that can only be given by the Pope, to an unknown group of people, not in the physical presence of the confessor, not in danger of death, and not unable to confess individually. No such thing exists, and I’m curious where he got the idea from.

 

[catharina]

They are not reporting to bishops. Only bishop Fellay has any authority and only because of his election. Fr. Schmidberger was the previous Superior. Fr. Fullerton is the Superior in the U.S.

Faculties have never been claimed by the SSPX. And since they’ve never been claimed, they’ve never been revoked.

From John Salza’s article:

And also on the broader principals at work:

Bernard Fellay has been the elected Superior General of sspx since 1994.
All authority (faculties) flow from him - or in this case, don’t flow at all.

 

[catharina]

It still doesn’t specifically say that the confessions and marriages of the SSPX are invalid. You say that the Pope is the final authority, but I don;'t see where the Pope has said that. This is your private and personal interpretation of certain rules and regulations. Are you a canon lawyer? What education do you have in canon law to make the authoritative decision that the confessions and marriages of the SSPX are not valid. My understanding is that there are experts in canon law who disagree with you. |Where is the reference to an authoritative document issued by the Pope where he specifically states that the marriages and the confessions of the SSPX are invalid and that supplied jurisdiction does not apply in this case.

My, you’re quite exercised.

I am not interpreting Canon Law. I’m quoting Canon Law and paraphrasing it. My education is not your business, but the two priest-professors (Canon lawyers) who have been my instructors in Canon Law have been more than satisfied with my stance.

 

[catharina]

I am aware of general absolution. But that’s not what JREducation described-- a blanket absolution that can only be given by the Pope, to an unknown group of people, not in the physical presence of the confessor, not in danger of death, and not unable to confess individually. No such thing exists, and I’m curious where he got the idea from.

Read the relevant codes.

 

[bobzills]

My education is not your business, …

You say that your education is not our business,
so why should we beleive what you are claiming when others are telling us that under supplied jurisdiction, the confessions and marriages of the SSPX are valid? If you are not properly educated in the field of canon law, then we may not have confidence in your credibility in this area, particularly since others say you are absolutely wrong because of the application of supplied jurisdiction in this particular case.

 

[JReducation]

Why don’t you show us where they said that? Because they never have.

You are in disagreement with the Magisterium of the Church. The Church recognized the validity of the marriages witnessed by suspended priests of the Society of St. John Vianney. No sanation was done.

No I’m not. I’m just telling you what Cardinal Hoyos told the media when he was in Nebraska for the last ordination of the FSSP.

Why the Church gives faculties to the Society of St. John Vianney, if they are truly suspended and denies them of the SSPX, I cannot answer that. That would be a question for the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

If this is the case, there must be a logical reason.

JR

 

[BrendanD]

Read the relevant codes.

I read it, there’s no such thing in there. The Church has never allowed a blanket absolution that can only be given by the Pope, to an unknown group of people, not in the physical presence of the confessor, not in danger of death, and not unable to confess individually. It is made up.

 

[bobzills]

Why the Church gives faculties to the Society of St. John Vianney, if they are truly suspended and denies them of the SSPX, I cannot answer that.

Perhaps it would be useful to study the concept of supplied jurisdiction before issuing pronouncements and declarations that the marriages and confessions of the SSPX are invalid.