Does the SSPV have a valid Eucharist?

[Butaperson]

I know that the SSPX has valid but illicit priests and therefore valid but illicit sacraments. However, what about the SSPV? I am truly curious.

Quick note. I am most certainly not planning to receive communion there, but I would like to know whether it is indeed valid.

 

[janeway529]

I know that the SSPX has valid but illicit priests and therefore valid but illicit sacraments. However, what about the SSPV? I am truly curious.

Quick note. I am most certainly not planning to receive communion there, but I would like to know whether it is indeed valid.

It would be the same as SSPX. SSPV is a breakaway group from the SSPX.

 

[Petaro]

It would be the same as SSPX. SSPV is a breakaway group from the SSPX.

What is interesting is that without a shepherd the flock can get scattered so quickly within two generations. We must keep these lost sheep in our prayer so they once again respect the authority of our blessed Pope.

 

[ProVobis]

It would be the same as SSPX. SSPV is a breakaway group from the SSPX.

Not that it would be invalid, but the SSPX at least use the approved 1962 Missal; I’m almost sure the SSPV uses some 1945 Missal and I don’t know whose Pope’s name they include in the Canon.

 

[malphono]

Not that it would be invalid, but the SSPX at least use the approved 1962 Missal; I’m almost sure the SSPV uses some 1945 Missal and I don’t know whose Pope’s name they include in the Canon.

AFAIK they use the editio typica of 1920 (last reprint I think was 1954). The difference between that and the 1962 is mainly in the classification of feasts, etc, and, of course, Holy Week. I’ve no idea who (if anyone) they commemorate.

 

[larsont7]

Not that it would be invalid, but the SSPX at least use the approved 1962 Missal; I’m almost sure the SSPV uses some 1945 Missal and I don’t know whose Pope’s name they include in the Canon.

I would venture to guess that they do not include a Pope’s name in the canon, just as we wouldn’t during an interregnum. It should be noted that the SSPV are not strict sedevacantists, as they only believe in the possibility that the See of Peter is vacant, and that the matter is unresolved. The CMRI (and most independent churches), on the other hand, are sedevacantist in principle.

As to the validity of their Masses, I cannot say with certainty. I tend to believe they are valid, but illicit, but that is just my opinion based on what I’ve read and heard. It gets real confusing when dealing with lineages and with the status of Archbishop Thuc, that I find it best to not even make those judgments.

 

[TheDoctor]

It depends I believe.

SSPV broke off the SSPX. SSPX priests are validly but illicitly ordained (SSPX has valid bishops), so if the priest at an SSPV mass is one ordained from SSPX, the Eucharist is valid.

I don’t know if SSPV has been ordaining new priests, but I do not believe any of the SSPX bishops went with them. That being the case, if the SSPV priest saying mass was invalidly ordained then the Eucharist would be invalid.

Regardless of the form of the mass being said or the missal used, I believe all that is required for a valid transubstantiation is the appropriate matter (bread and wine), a validly ordained priest with the correct intention to transubstantiate and the proper words of consecration (this is my body, this is my blood).

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Without necessarily endorsing anything on this page, you can get a sense of the conplexity of ordinations with these sorts of groups.

tboyle.net/Catholicism/Outline.html

 

[Lormar]

I know that the SSPX has valid but illicit priests and therefore valid but illicit sacraments. However, what about the SSPV? I am truly curious.

Quick note. I am most certainly not planning to receive communion there, but I would like to know whether it is indeed valid.

Yes, they do have valid sacraments. Their ordinations are valid. As you already know, they are not licit.