There are some conditions under which the absolution is valid, because the Church supplies. Before we go there, let us be clear that the SSPX’s explanation of Supplied Jurisdiction is its own explanation, not that of the Holy See. It’s only authoritative to them, not to the Church. Only the Church can authoritatively define canonical principles not individuals or institutes.
When does the Church supply jurisdiction to absolve:
- In danger of death
- While traveling
- When the penitent does not know that the priest is suspended and he assumes, in good faith, that the priest has the power and authority to absolve him.
Other than that, the priests of the SSPX must receive faculities/permission to absolve from the local bishop or from a male major superior of religious order. The latter can only grant that permission if the confession is to be heard in a house or institution of the order and those going to confession are under the jurisdiction of the religious superior, such as lay students and all religious.
If you know that the priest is suspended and you decide that the law does not apply, you are acting in a schismatic manner, because you are taking the law into your own hands or accepting the interpretation of someone who is not authorized by the Church to interpret the law.
Marriage is very similar. The form requires that the priest or deacon witnessing the marriage have faculties from the local bishop and permission of the pastor of the territorial parish where the marriage is to take place.
Without the bishop’s permission the marriage is invalid. Without the permission of the territorial pastor the marriage is illegal. I would not want to live wondering about my marriage.
Having said all of this, the SSPX is NOT in the same situation as Protestants nor as Orthodox Christians.
Protestants do not have valid orders. Therefore, there are few valid sacraments in Protestantism. If memory serves me right, only baptism and matrimony.
Orthodox are governed by our Code of Canon Law. The Orthodox Churches have their own code of law. Even though they are in schism, our laws do not apply to them. The only thing that is universal is truth, not legislation.
Therefore, Orthodox clergymen who have permission of their bishops and are validly ordained by their bishops, celebrate valid and licit sacraments. Thus we say that we have a Communion in Sacris with them, which is a communion in the sacred.
We don’t have such a communion with the SSPX, because of the suspended state of its clergy. There are sacraments that it’s clergy cannot validly celebrate. If my memory serves me right, the only sacrament that you can administer without permission is Baptism. The others then would be valid, but illicit/illegal.
But it would be very wrong for us to deny the apostolic succession of the clerics of the SSPX or the validity of their ordination. In fact, ,such a denial is a violation of justice. Their ordinations are illegal, but valid.
. Fr. Farraher was a Jesuit, a canon lawyer, a moral theologian, a holder of a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) from Gregorian University in Rome, and a former president of Alma College.[14] In the October 1983 issue of the "Homiletic & Pastoral Review”, Fr. Joseph J. Farraher, SJ, wrote the following:
As for Archbishop Lefebvre’s priests, see my answer in the Aug.- Sept.1982 issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review where I stated that, although his priests are illicitly ordained, they are validly ordained and have the radical power to absolve sacramentally. And, although ordinarily priests require “faculties” or jurisdiction to absolve validly and the Archbishop’s priests do not have valid faculties, nevertheless when they enter a confessional in what appears to be a Catholic church, the supreme authority of the Church in Canon Law supplies jurisdiction to them just so that the faithful who approach them in good faith for Confession will not suffer lack of valid absolution.[15]
In the February 1985 issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Fr. Farraher again spoke to the question of confessing to Society priests: “The Masses said, the absolution given, and the marriages witnessed by them are all most probably valid, the latter two categories at least by ‘common error’.”[16]
However, if the opinion of Fr. Farraher isn’t convincing enough, consider the opinion of Paul Augustin Cardinal Mayer. In 1989, as President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” Cardinal Mayer responded to a letter written by a Catholic from California asking about the validity of Society sacraments. The Cardinal wrote, “The principle of “common error”, whether on the part of only one faithful or on the part of the community, can be applied in this case, and such acts are thereby valid (cf. canons 144, 976, 1331, 1333, 1335)”[17]
Furthermore, on November 22, 2012 the website for the German District of the SSPX reported that well known canonist Dr. Georg May, made Apostolic Protonotary by Benedict XVI in January 2012,[18] affirmed that the Church supplied jurisdiction in the case of SSPX confessions and that they are, therefore, valid.[19]
In addition, Catholic lawyer and apologist, John Salza, who has appeared on EWTN television and radio and has written books for Our Sunday Visitor[20] has the following to say on the issue:
Would a community of average Catholics be induced to believe that a priest has faculties if they saw that priest celebrating Mass and hearing confessions in a Catholic chapel? Particularly when the chapel is in the public square, advertises its Mass times, has hundreds of congregants and all the other indicia of a Catholic parish? (Remember, the community doesn’t have to actually believe it; only that they could be induced to believe it.) I believe the answer to this question is “Yes.” This is why the community of believers is “capable of having a common error.”[21]
