False Traditionalists and the Indult Mass

[Sean_O_L]

Pgoings wrote:

As an aside: Is the marriage of two S.S.P.X. adherents who were never Roman Catholics invalid? If so, why? They surely cannot be bound to the prescriptions of Canon 1108, can they? And also the confessions of those in the same position? Or does the Church teach that the confessions of the Orthodox are invalid?

This really is an impossible scenario. “SSPX adherents who were never Roman Catholics”!

First of all, I do not believe that the SSPX would EVER accept as an adherent an un-Baptized person. If an un-Baptized person were to approach the SSPX to be married - then, I am certain that the SSPX would insist on Baptism being performed.

Please remember that when a person is Baptized - whether it be by an Anglican, Methodist or Jew (providing the correct Form and Matter are used) THEN that person does receive sacramental Baptism and thereby IS a Catholic. However, when they subsequently adhere to a schismatic ecclesial group (such as the SSPX or the Anglican church) THEN they become schismatic.

Faculties for Marriage flow through the local Bishop. The SSPX do not possess those faculties. Thus, any marriages performed by them are illicit and invalid. Furthermore, for State purposes, an authorized person needs to perform the Marriage for the State - otherwise - no marriage exists as far as the State is concerned…

.

 

[GoLatin]

Sean O L:

Pgoings wrote:

This really is an impossible scenario. “SSPX adherents who were never Roman Catholics”!

First of all, I do not believe that the SSPX would EVER accept as an adherent an un-Baptized person. If an un-Baptized person were to approach the SSPX to be married - then, I am certain that the SSPX would insist on Baptism being performed.

Please remember that when a person is Baptized - whether it be by an Anglican, Methodist or Jew (providing the correct Form and Matter are used) THEN that person does receive sacramental Baptism and thereby IS a Catholic. However, when they subsequently adhere to a schismatic ecclesial group (such as the SSPX or the Anglican church) THEN they become schismatic.

Faculties for Marriage flow through the local Bishop. The SSPX do not possess those faculties. Thus, any marriages performed by them are illicit and invalid. Furthermore, for State purposes, an authorized person needs to perform the Marriage for the State - otherwise - no marriage exists as far as the State is concerned…

.

I think that what Pgoings meant to say was this:

If a person was raised in the SSPX, and NEVER adhered to the the Catholic Church in full communion with the Pope, and this person wished to marry another such person, in the SSPX, would the marriage be valid?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Sean O L:

Pgoings wrote:

This really is an impossible scenario. “SSPX adherents who were never Roman Catholics”!

First of all, I do not believe that the SSPX would EVER accept as an adherent an un-Baptized person. If an un-Baptized person were to approach the SSPX to be married - then, I am certain that the SSPX would insist on Baptism being performed.

Please remember that when a person is Baptized - whether it be by an Anglican, Methodist or Jew (providing the correct Form and Matter are used) THEN that person does receive sacramental Baptism and thereby IS a Catholic. However, when they subsequently adhere to a schismatic ecclesial group (such as the SSPX or the Anglican church) THEN they become schismatic.

Faculties for Marriage flow through the local Bishop. The SSPX do not possess those faculties. Thus, any marriages performed by them are illicit and invalid. Furthermore, for State purposes, an authorized person needs to perform the Marriage for the State - otherwise - no marriage exists as far as the State is concerned…

.

I know that a thread regarding confessions produced some documentation to the effect, but as I can’t remember exactly where to look you can take this as just my thoughts:

In cases where a pentitent is unaware that a priest does not have faculties to perform a sacrament, the Church “supplies” the faculties for that particular case. So if I went to Church one day and confessed to Fr. Frockless without knowing that he does not at the time have the power to forgive my sins, so long as I receive his absolution in good conscience (i.e. unaware of the irregularity) his absolution of me is efficacious.

I would suspect that the same sort of provision might apply to the marriages performed by SSPX priests. Not all Catholics are fully aware of the theology impacting marriage, esp. the fact that its liceity can impact its validity. So I think it might be possible to be validly married with an SSPX priest as witness if one were unaware that it would be invalid. Of course I still think that, as a general rule, marriages would need to be sanated upon reconciliation rather than presuming ignorance on the part of all those who had been so married.

 

[pgoings]

Please remember that when a person is Baptized - whether it be by an Anglican, Methodist or Jew (providing the correct Form and Matter are used) THEN that person does receive sacramental Baptism and thereby IS a Catholic. However, when they subsequently adhere to a schismatic ecclesial group (such as the SSPX or the Anglican church) THEN they become schismatic.

This is, I believe, technically correct. However, your strict interpretation of the principle involved would imply that the confessions and marriages of the Orthodox, and the marriages of Protestants are all invalid, and I do not believe that this is what the Church teaches. Further, you are blurring the proper distinction between formal and material schism, the latter being the state in which the Orthodox, Anglicans and other Protestants find themselves in.

There exist today both priests and laity who are adherents of the S.S.P.X. who have never been in communion with the Holy See (or in any case since their baptism, as above). They are either born into it, or have been converted to it from one of the Protestant sects. Are they bound by the same laws as those who are in formal schism? And if they are, why are not the Orthodox and Protestants?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Andreas Hofer:

I know that a thread regarding confessions produced some documentation to the effect, but as I can’t remember exactly where to look you can take this as just my thoughts:

In cases where a pentitent is unaware that a priest does not have faculties to perform a sacrament, the Church “supplies” the faculties for that particular case. So if I went to Church one day and confessed to Fr. Frockless without knowing that he does not at the time have the power to forgive my sins, so long as I receive his absolution in good conscience (i.e. unaware of the irregularity) his absolution of me is efficacious.

I would suspect that the same sort of provision might apply to the marriages performed by SSPX priests. Not all Catholics are fully aware of the theology impacting marriage, esp. the fact that its liceity can impact its validity. So I think it might be possible to be validly married with an SSPX priest as witness if one were unaware that it would be invalid. Of course I still think that, as a general rule, marriages would need to be sanated upon reconciliation rather than presuming ignorance on the part of all those who had been so married.

I’m not sure this would be correct. It seems to me that the marriage would be as invalid as it would be had they entered into that state before an SSPX priest KNOWINGLY, but that ignorance would render them non-culpable.

 

[Sean_O_L]

GoLatin wrote:

If a person was raised in the SSPX, and NEVER adhered to the the Catholic Church in full communion with the Pope, and this person wished to marry another such person, in the SSPX, would the marriage be valid?

Well, I replied to what pgoings proposed; of course, there ARE other scenarios, one of which you now advance.

In the above instance:
First of all, the SSPX do not possess ANY faculties for weddings and confessions - and, anyway, pgoings DID specify unbaptized adherents!

Secondly, an SSPX priest MAY possess civil permission to perform civil marriages “for the State.” If he performs a marriage between SSPX adherents (baptized or unbaptized - if that were possible) OR a couple of heretics or agnostics or a couple of athiests or African Bushmen (!) - and if he followed the procedure required “for the State” - then, the couple would be legally and validly married as far as the State is concerned.

Now, remember, that a marriage is a contract between two eligible persons who undertake life vows to enter the married state. It is THEY who make the contract - usually before an authorized person “for the State”, and in religious circumstances - “for the Church.”

However, the SSPX priest still cannot legally or validly perform ANY ceremonies of any kind (except in “danger of death” circumstances) “for the Church.” Any such contract entered into in these conditions must be ratified/legaiized/sanated by the Church.

Remember, too, that these can be circumstances (e.g. war conditions) where a couple might enter into marriage vows without any witnesses (at the time) - and the marriage would be considered to be a true marriage. Of course, when circumstances permitted, then the couple would have to notify both State and Church for the Marriage to be recorded, etc.

 

[palmas85]

GoLatin:

I think that what Pgoings meant to say was this:

If a person was raised in the SSPX, and NEVER adhered to the the Catholic Church in full communion with the Pope, and this person wished to marry another such person, in the SSPX, would the marriage be valid?

I guess as long as the SSPX priest is recognized by the state of residence as being a priest, and the couple has a marriage license, blood test and goes through whatever other hoops the particular state requires, then the marriage would be a valid civil marriage. I don’t think it would be a valid sacramental marriage though and really don’t see how it could be.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Andreas wrote:

Of course I still think that, as a general rule, marriages would need to be sanated upon reconciliation rather than presuming ignorance on the part of all those who had been so married.

True. Consider the following from my “notes”:

Vincent V.D.L and Belinda W. were married by Fr Todd Angele at Hampton “for the Church” - even though he had NO JURISDICTION to perform the marriage for the Church! In any event - several months elapsed before the couple realised that they are not civilly married. Fr Angele had failed to ensure that the couple were married “for the State”! November 19, 1994.

November 26, 1994: Christopher H. & Cassandra C. were married “for the Church” by Fr Angele at Ballarat. They had married some few days earlier “for the State”. Nevertheless, their SSPX Church marriage was performed “without jurisdiction”.

The couples were devastated for differing reasons - all due to the failure to realize that procedures for the Church and the State were effectively considered to be of “no account” by this priest who was a) suspended a divinis from witnessing “for the Church” and b) who possessed no jurisdiction to witness a marriage “for the State.”

However, there are differences between Marriage and Confession. Yes, the Church “supplies” in cases of Confession in those circumstances - but NOT for Marriages - where the schismatic priest is NOT a Minister of the Marriage.

 

[Sean_O_L]

pgoings wrote:

This is, I believe, technically correct

.
Of course it is - and THAT is what matters!

However, your strict interpretation of the principle involved would imply that the confessions and marriages of the Orthodox, and the marriages of Protestants are all invalid,

No it does not!
a) Being a Church, and possessing the Apostolic Succession, the Orthodox possess jurisdiction over their subjects AND are perfectly able to act as witnesses to the Sacramental Marriages of their subjects.
b) Protestants are not Members of the catholic Church and are classified as “ecclesial communities.” As such, their pastors are able to act as witnesses for their churches (note the lower case “c”) for the perfectly valid mariages.
c) Likewise, an authorizes witness for a pair of Bushmen is also OK for a valid marriage between that couple.

and I do not believe that this is what the Church teaches.

And you are right in believing that - but not for the reasons you give.

Further, you are blurring the proper distinction between formal and material schism,

No I am not.

the latter being the state in which the Orthodox, Anglicans and other Protestants find themselves in.

Not precisely as you state.
a) Yes, both Orthodox and Protestants of today are more likely to be in a state of material schism - as opposed to the originators of the schisms who were in formal schism.
b) The SSPX adherents of the present day are more likely to be in a state of formal schism.
c) There is more “blame” on the part of present-day SSPX adherents.

 

[Sean_O_L]

palmas85 wrote:

I guess as long as the SSPX priest is recognized by the state of residence as being a priest, and the couple has a marriage license, blood test and goes through whatever other hoops the particular state requires, then the marriage would be a valid civil marriage. I don’t think it would be a valid sacramental marriage though and really don’t see how it could be.

Spot on - except for the fact that the State could not give a fig as to whether the Civil Minister is a priest or not. Thet WOULD “give a fig” if the ceremony was performed by a person who did not hold an authorization by the State to perform a marriage.

 

[TNT]

Sean O L:

pgoings wrote:
.
…
b) The SSPX adherents of the present day are more likely to be in a state of formal schism.
c) There is more “blame” on the part of present-day SSPX adherents.

Since 17 years ago, many have been born into the SSPX, to say nothing of those who converted from a non-Catholic sect into the SSPX.
About 30% of the people in the SSPX today were never in the Vatican II church or in the pre-vatican II church…mostly the ones born into SSPX.
In about 20 years 85% will be in that position.
Just think, in 50 years, they’ll be welcome as the orthodox brethren…then you can go to communion, confession, all the orthodox bells and smells at the local SSPX. (see canon law).
The longer you are in schism, the better it is according to the modern theology…what a hoot.

 

[Sean_O_L]

TNTwrote:

…

If what you wrote was not so sadly close to being true - it would be very droll!

Unfortunately for the initiators (and their adherents), they ARE more to blame for being in a state of schism than their progeny who may be baptized after being born (and thus are Catholics by baptism), but who become at least material schismatics when they embrace SSPXism as adherents.

It IS so very sad - for there is NO good reason for schism. That is why I pray and do what I do in order to attempt to influence my former brothers and sisters to revert to Catholicism. Objectively, a formal schismatic is in mortal danger of eternal damnation - surely this is nothing to jest about or to be subject to billious venting?

Just think, in 50 years, they’ll be welcome as the orthodox brethren…then you can go to communion, confession, all the orthodox bells and smells at the local SSPX.

Your logic has fled you together with your theology, TNT! One can go to an Orthodox OR an SSPX Mass and Communion (but NOT Confession!!!) - but in the absence of a local Catholic Mass being available. The circumstances where THAT scenario might apply would be far and few. Confession from either - but only in danger of death and the unavailability of a Catholic priest.

But, really! I ought not have to explain this to you, ought I?

 

[TNT]

Sean O L:

TNTwrote:

…but who become at least material schismatics when they embrace SSPXism as adherents.

Your logic has fled you together with your theology, TNT! One can go to an Orthodox OR an SSPX Mass and Communion (but NOT Confession!!!) - but in the absence of a local Catholic Mass being available. The circumstances where THAT scenario might apply would be far and few. Confession from either - but only in danger of death and the unavailability of a Catholic priest.

But, really! I ought not have to explain this to you, ought I?

No you need not. My wife is a non-cath convert to the SSPX.
What I meant by the sacraments is that the SSPX members’ would receive them validly just as the E-O members do today…

 

[Sean_O_L]

TNT wrote:

No you need not. My wife is a non-cath convert to the SSPX.

I remember that she is in that position.

What I meant by the sacraments is that the SSPX members’ would receive them validly just as the E-O members do today…

Validity IS validity! So, while the SSPX priests ARE validly ordained then the Mass and Eucharist, ARE valid, and remain validly received by those who present themselves - whether they be SSPX adherents OR innocent passers-by OR by those who genuinely do not adhere to the SSPX schism.

By the same token, this would also apply to adherents and non-adherents to a Mass/Eucharist performed by a validly ordained Satanist!

Both would be “valid” - but, equally, both are illicit! Neither are intrinsically “good”.

But the matter of “marriages” are a different “kettle-of-fish.” The SSPX priests have NO JURISDICTION from the Church to witness “for the Church” over marriages.

I certainly sympathaze with you in your very delicate position.

Addition:
When you refer to the E-O, I guess you refer to the Eastern Orthodox who are in union with Rome? If so, then it is wrong to compare the SSPX with the E-O - for the priests of the Eastern Orthodox (who are in union with Rome) possess legitimately jurisdiction from their Bishops/Superiors.

If you really mean to compare the SSPX and the Orthodox (e.g. Russian, greek, etc.) then, again this is incorrect. For the difference is that the Orthodox ARE recognized as being 'sister Churches possessing the full Apostolic Succession, and the priests ARE deligated jurisdiction to perform marriages. The difference is that the SSPX CLAIM to be in union with Rome - while at the same time telling Rome to “get stuffed”! They are a little better than the Protestants - the main difference being that the protestants (generally) do not possess Apostolic Succession.
Furthermore, the SSPX priests are NOT granted jurisdiction by the local Catholic Ordinary to perform marriages for the Church.

 

[GoLatin]

Sean O L:

Your logic has fled you together with your theology, TNT! One can go to an Orthodox OR an SSPX Mass and Communion (but NOT Confession!!!) - but in the absence of a local Catholic Mass being available. The circumstances where THAT scenario might apply would be far and few. Confession from either - but only in danger of death and the unavailability of a Catholic priest.

I was told,(by a diocesan Priest) that since the status of the SSPX is irregular(to say the least!) that if that were the ONLY valid Mass that you could get to, then your obligation to attend Mass would be dispensed, and you wouldn’t need to go to Mass at all.

Since the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome, I assume that if the Orthodox church was the only one that you could get to, your obligation in that case would be dispensed as well. I am pretty sure about this.

So there really is no good reason to attend an SSPX Mass!

 

[totustuusmaria]

GoLatin:

I was told,(by a diocesan Priest) that since the status of the SSPX is irregular(to say the least!) that if that were the ONLY valid Mass that you could get to, then your obligation to attend Mass would be dispensed, and you wouldn’t need to go to Mass at all.

Since the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome, I assume that if the Orthodox church was the only one that you could get to, your obligation in that case would be dispensed as well. I am pretty sure about this.

So there really is no good reason to attend an SSPX Mass!

Ah, but if there was an Orthodox Church and an SSPX chapel you should choose the SSPX chapel since they acknowledge filial devotion to the Pope, are probably not in formal schism, are not a “Church” and thus do not have members, and they don’t mind if you receive at their Church wereas the Orthodox definitevily do mind.

Perhaps I’ll get some beef for that position, but there it is: the SSPX is more Catholic than the Orthodox.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

GoLatin:

I was told,(by a diocesan Priest) that since the status of the SSPX is irregular(to say the least!) that if that were the ONLY valid Mass that you could get to, then your obligation to attend Mass would be dispensed, and you wouldn’t need to go to Mass at all.

Since the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome, I assume that if the Orthodox church was the only one that you could get to, your obligation in that case would be dispensed as well. I am pretty sure about this.

So there really is no good reason to attend an SSPX Mass!

Precisely, the obligation in either case ceases. I went to one, but I asked my confessor for permission, and I didn’t attempt to fufill the Sunday obligation with it (I went to the Pauline Mass at the Saturday Vigil).

 

[totustuusmaria]

JKirkLVNV:

Precisely, the obligation in either case ceases. I went to one, but I asked my confessor for permission, and I didn’t attempt to fufill the Sunday obligation with it (I went to the Pauline Mass at the Saturday Vigil).

However, for those of us who have weak souls and who need frequent communion and frequent immersion in the liturgy, we are permitted in such circumstances to receive Our Lord there.

Actually the previous Code of Canon Law even allowed a faithful person for any just reason to recieve from someone whom he knew to be excommunicated. The Church values the spiritual well being of her children too much to forbid them the Sacrament.

 

[Sean_O_L]

GoLatin wrote:

I was told,(by a diocesan Priest) that since the status of the SSPX is irregular(to say the least!) that if that were the ONLY valid Mass that you could get to, then your obligation to attend Mass would be dispensed, and you wouldn’t need to go to Mass at all.

Since the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome, I assume that if the Orthodox church was the only one that you could get to, your obligation in that case would be dispensed as well. I am pretty sure about this.

So there really is no good reason to attend an SSPX Mass!

And THAT is absolutely spot-on!

There is a vast difference between “may one do this” and “must one do that”. Cardinal Camille Perl has always been asked the former question: “may I attend SSPX Masses [in these conditions]” His answer has only been “yes” under very strict conditions" and have always been preceded with a statement that the Vatican does not encourage the attendance - however, IF … then…

But, no-one is obliged to attend a schismatic Mass. No-one!

 

[Sean_O_L]

totustuusmaria wrote:

Ah, but if there was an Orthodox Church and an SSPX chapel you should choose the SSPX chapel since they acknowledge filial devotion to the Pope, are probably not in formal schism, are not a “Church” and thus do not have members, and they don’t mind if you receive at their Church wereas the Orthodox definitevily do mind.

Perhaps I’ll get some beef for that position, but there it is: the SSPX is more Catholic than the Orthodox.

You have been spending too much time at Angel Queen and have been influenced by pro-SSPXers there!

The objective state of BOTH is the same - both are in a state of schism! That the SSPX “acknowledge of filial devotion to the Pope” is an urban myth! They “say” that but then tell the Pope to “get stuffed” in no uncertain terms - baying all the time that the normative Mass of the Roman Rite is “intrinsically evil.” Do you comprehend what “intrinsically evil” means?

On the contrary also as to "not being in formal schism’! They ARE in formal schism who “adhere to the schism” according to Pope John Paul II! Are you claiming to be a better Law- maker and Law-Interpreter than the Pope? Sure enough sounds like it!

As to they “do not have members” - WRONG! It DOES have members - they comprise the present bishops, and priests AND lay persons who are Third Order Members.

And, they “don’t mind if you receive at their church”, you say?

Well, yes and no!

John Beaumont wrote:

It gives Holy Communion to persons who are well known sede vacantists (Canon 844). This is in spite of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself regarded such movements as having a “schismatic spirit” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics (1986), p. 155).

and

On the other hand, they will deny communion to those who habitually attend the local Novus Ordo Liturgy.