Fr. Z and Jeff Mirus on SSPX Confessional Validity

[PaulinVA]

How can “common error” apply to this situation? One person’s ignorance is not “common” error.

Think of it this way. If anyone walked into a “Catholic” chapel/church and saw a confession line and had their confession heard, they would believe that they had just had a valid confession and the absolution would be valid. As long as the Priest was validly ordained, the Church supplies jurisdiction.

Now, if the same Priest is known by you to not have jurisdiction, then your confession is invalid because you* know* it’s not valid. I would hope that every person who regularly attends an SSPX chapel knows the status of their Priests. I guess that’s an interesting question - in a confession line at an SSPX chapel, can some people have valid confessions and some not?

 

[pnewton]

How can “common error” apply to this situation? One person’s ignorance is not “common” error.

I do not know if it does. I am no canon lawyer. However, if I may speculate, I would think it to be common if one saw a Catholic Chapel and was unfamiliar with the SSPX that there would be an assumption that confessions are valid.

 

[Yves_Congar]

Think of it this way. If anyone walked into a “Catholic” chapel/church and saw a confession line and had their confession heard, they would believe that they had just had a valid confession and the absolution would be valid. As long as the Priest was validly ordained, the Church supplies jurisdiction.

Under what code of canon law do you get to this conclusion? The canon on common error refers to “common” error. Not the ignorance of particular individuals about the faculties of their priest.

 

[Yves_Congar]

I do not know if it does. I am no canon lawyer. However, if I may speculate, I would think it to be common if one saw a Catholic Chapel and was unfamiliar with the SSPX that there would be an assumption that confessions are valid.

But the law is looking at this from the perspective of whether it is reasonable that a community of Catholics would be induced to believe a Society priest in a Society chapel has jurisdiction. How would any community of Catholics be induced to believe Society priests have jurisdiction? If the answer is that they wouldn’t be, then jurisdiction is not supplied for the Society priest’s confessions at all. I don’t see how the ignorance of an individual would change this.

 

[pnewton]

Under what code of canon law do you get to this conclusion? The canon on common error refers to “common” error. Not the ignorance of particular individuals about the faculties of their priest.

Canon law does not provide a list of definitions, so the question has no answer. No where can you find a definition of common or whether an error may be from ignorance or not. I can’t think off hand though how error can not involve some ignorance. It sure doesn’t involve dropping a pop fly.

 

[Mike30]

But the law is looking at this from the perspective of whether it is reasonable that a community of Catholics would be induced to believe a Society priest in a Society chapel has jurisdiction. How would any community of Catholics be induced to believe Society priests have jurisdiction? If the answer is that they wouldn’t be, then jurisdiction is not supplied for the Society priest’s confessions at all. I don’t see how the ignorance of an individual would change this.

The average Catholic, at least in my experience, doesn’t even know who or what the SSPX is, let alone understand the technicalities of their situation and place within the Church. I can certainly see why a group or groups of Catholics may honestly not know what their situation is and whether or not it is in fact OK to attend their Chaperls and receive their sacraments. I would take it a step further and say that at least some of those who attend these Chapels believe that it is perfectly OK to receive these sacraments. Lets remember, the Society itself is still within the Church, albeit in an irregular status. That very status is very murky and not clear at all, even to those who study it.

The Church herslf hasn’t been crystal clear on the situation and the posters on this forum, who generally seem or claim to know more about such things are all over the map with their opinions on this subject. Yes a few higher ups have posted what appear to be their ideas and opinions but really, there isn’t much out there beyond that.

 

[Dee_S]

I do not know if it does. I am no canon lawyer. However, if I may speculate, I would think it to be common if one saw a Catholic Chapel and was unfamiliar with the SSPX that there would be an assumption that confessions are valid.

A fair assumption too. Anyone who “genuinely” does not know that the SSPX priests do not have the required faculty - is absolved - as “the Church supplies” (Eccesia supplet) in these instances.
**
"To absolve sins validly, a priest must be given the faculty to do so, a faculty that, normally, only the local bishop can give. Similarly, in normal circumstances a marriage can be contracted validly only in the presence of the local bishop or the parish priest or of a priest or deacon delegated by one of these.To overcome this difficulty, the Society says that absolution and marriage under its auspices are valid, on the grounds of its interpretation of canon 144 §1 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: “In common error, whether of fact or of law, and in positive and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and the internal forum”, and canon 844 §2, which declares that, “whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.” In a private letter to a member of the faithful, the president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei stated that, in accordance with canon 144* someone who confesses to an SSPX priest while genuinely not knowing that the priest does not have the required faculty will be validly absolved, but that, with this exception, the sacraments of Penance and Matrimony in which SSPX priests are involved are invalid**.***
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X

 

[Dee_S]

The SSPX marriages are also invalid for the same reason. No jurisdiction. There have been many warnings issued in regard to these two sacraments being invalid over the years by Eccesia Dei and the information can be found, if one wants it to be.

From my experience in the SSPX, Jursidiction was the most written and spoken about subject - ever, and they persistently use Canon 144 to justify their claim to “extraordinary jurisdiction” due to their perceived “crisis in the Church” - which is ironic given the above extract, which shows that the Church uses the same Canon to supply this missing Jurisdiction in the case of a person “genuinely” not knowing that their priests lack the faculty to validly absolve.

 

[jwinch2]

From my experience in the SSPX, Jursidiction was the most written and spoken about subject - ever, and they persistently use Canon 144 to justify their claim to “extraordinary jurisdiction” due to their perceived “crisis in the Church” - which is ironic given the above extract, which shows that the Church uses the same Canon to supply this missing Jurisdiction in the case of a person “genuinely” not knowing that their priests lack the faculty to validly absolve.

I’m no SSPX apologist and have never been to an SSPX chapel, but to be entirely fair to them, more and more bishops and cardinals, not to mention two probable saints in Servants of God Fulton Sheen and John Hardon, have referred to the events in the Church since Vatican II specifically as a crisis. I have heard Fr. Hardon quoted, as well as several bishops such as Cardinal Burke and most recently Cardinal Kasper claim, that this particular crisis is unique in the history of the Church. I am not qualified to determine how that impacts their claim of extraordinary jurisdiction, and while not defending the steps that they have taken, it may be that the SSPX will be viewed through the lens of history as being entirely correct on their assessment of the state of the Church.

 

[runningdude]

How can “common error” apply to this situation? One person’s ignorance is not “common” error.

“Common error” is a technical term within Canon (Church) Law, with a very specific meaning. I cannot tell from this post if you are using the term correctly.

 

[pnewton]

“Common error” is a technical term within Canon (Church) Law, with a very specific meaning. I cannot tell from this post if you are using the term correctly.

Likewise “extraordinary jurisdiction” is not a term that appears in canon 144. Since the SSPX are not in schism, they are supposed to be subject to this and not able to make this change. The key subject of “the Church supplies” is “Church”. It is the Church that supplies because of its authority, the same authority it has to say what it does and does not supply.

 

[Dee_S]

I’m no SSPX apologist and have never been to an SSPX chapel, but to be entirely fair to them, more and more bishops and cardinals, not to mention two probable saints in Servants of God Fulton Sheen and John Hardon, have referred to the events in the Church since Vatican II specifically as a crisis. I have heard Fr. Hardon quoted, as well as several bishops such as Cardinal Burke and most recently Cardinal Kasper claim, that this particular crisis is unique in the history of the Church. I am not qualified to determine how that impacts their claim of extraordinary jurisdiction, and while not defending the steps that they have taken, it may be that the SSPX will be viewed through the lens of history as being entirely correct on their assessment of the state of the Church.

I agree with you all round here, but we must trust the Church to provide the remedy.
Where I can’t agree, is that the SSPX is “entirely correct” in their assessment - nor with their actions to implement repair. Especially their continued rejection of Papal Authority while they dispense invalid sacraments.
Some extracts from the letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1976 show the origin of their attitude, that even Pope Benedict failed to change, and therein lies the problem:

"1. In practice you put yourself forward as the defender and spokesman of the faithful and of priests “torn apart by what is happening in the church,” thus giving the sad impression that the Catholic faith and the essential values of tradition are not sufficiently respected and lived in a portion of the people of God, at least in certain countries. But in your interpretations of the facts and in the particular role that you assign yourself, as well as in the way in which you accomplish this role, there is something that misleads the people of God and deceives souls of good will who are justly desirous of fidelity and of spiritual and apostolic progress.

“Deviations in the faith or in sacramental practice are certainly very grave, wherever they occur. For a long period of time they have been the object of Our full doctrinal and pastoral attention. Certainly one must not forget the positive signs of spiritual renewal or of increased responsibility in a good number of Catholics, or the complexity of the cause of the crisis:…”

"… But these abuses cannot be attributed either to the Council itself or to the reform that have legitimately issued therefrom, but rather to a lack of authentic fidelity in their regard. You want to convince the faithful that the proximate cause of the crisis is more than a wrong interpretation of the Council and that it flows from the Council itself."

"Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard. But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us.

“Indeed We do not cease to raise Our voice against these excesses:…This is not the place to remind you, brother, of all the acts of Our pontificate that testify to Our constant concern to ensure for the church fidelity to the true tradition, and to enable her with God’s grace to face the present and future.”
jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm

 

[runningdude]

Likewise “extraordinary jurisdiction” is not a term that appears in canon 144. Since the SSPX are not in schism, they are supposed to be subject to this and not able to make this change. The key subject of “the Church supplies” is “Church”. It is the Church that supplies because of its authority,** the same authority it has to say what it does and does not supply.**

And the church has not said that it specifically denies the validity of the SSPX confession. Therefore, as I have consistently argued, it is a “dice roll”, or at best uncertain as to the validity of their confession.

 

[Dee_S]

And the church has not said that it specifically denies the validity of the SSPX confession. Therefore, as I have consistently argued, it is a “dice roll”, or at best uncertain as to the validity of their confession.

Sorry to disagree…but the Church ***has ***specifically denied the validity of the SSPX marriages and confessions.

There are many sources to prove this. **Any **priest that incurs suspension a divinis no longer has faculties to celebrate any sacraments. While his Mass/Eucharist may be valid but illicit, his absolutions and marriages remain invalid. see Canon Law for details…

The “dice roll” does feature…in that, objectively and by the Law of the Church, these sacraments are invalid. But subjectively…that is another ball-game. Does being sincerely convinced render them valid? Not likely. Perhaps, Ecclesia Supplet comes into effect for souls who are genuinely convinced. Anyhow, not a great position to be in salvation’s not easy any which way you look at it.

This extract from the letter of Msg Perl (to an enquiry by one of the faithful) gives many points for reflection.

"b.** While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265).**

“f. You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We Must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the various dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.”

 "g. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily     on the interpretation of the law. Any more Authoritative response to your questions than     the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine     of the Faith. The fact that that Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates     that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and     organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible,     but should be taken as norms of moral certitude."

 "i. Our response to your questions may be made public."

ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm

 

[sugar57]

I very was angry but didnt rise to it as I believe people are entitled to an opinion but at the same time there’s no need to be so downright disrespectful it’s wrong!!​

You relax with kizi games today to feel that Top best flash games online. All free .

 

[Dee_S]

 

[Boulder257]

I didn’t get it either.

 

[runningdude]

Sorry to disagree…but the Church ***has ***specifically denied the validity of the SSPX marriages and confessions.

There are many sources to prove this. **Any **priest that incurs suspension a divinis no longer has faculties to celebrate any sacraments. While his Mass/Eucharist may be valid but illicit, his absolutions and marriages remain invalid. see Canon Law for details…

The “dice roll” does feature…in that, objectively and by the Law of the Church, these sacraments are invalid. But subjectively…that is another ball-game. Does being sincerely convinced render them valid? Not likely. Perhaps, Ecclesia Supplet comes into effect for souls who are genuinely convinced. Anyhow, not a great position to be in salvation’s not easy any which way you look at it.

This extract from the letter of Msg Perl (to an enquiry by one of the faithful) gives many points for reflection.

"b.** While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis**, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265).

“f. You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We Must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the various dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.”

 "g. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily     on the interpretation of the law. Any more Authoritative response to your questions than     the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine     of the Faith. The fact that that Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates     that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and     organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible,     but should be taken as norms of moral certitude."

 "i. Our response to your questions may be made public."

ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm

Marriage is an entirely separate entity, and I did not address it. It is by its nature, a publicly celebrated sacrament except under the most extreme circumstances. A putative marriage entered into before an SSPX priest would be declared null if brought before the diocesan tribunal. One document proporting to be a means of reconciliation for the group specifically offered radical sanation of all weddings before the society (I cannot vouch for the authenticity of this document).

Confession is an entirely different matter. It is thoroughly private, and often necessary for salvation. Eternal damnation rests on being able to receive this sacrament. You yourself give circumstances under which the SSPX can offer valid confession - hence the “dice roll”. The Apologists and moderators on this site acknowledge “serious concerns” regarding the validity of their sacraments, rather than cite a definitive ruling specifically naming their confession invalid. Hence, “dice roll”.

More over, Bishop Felley has said that society priests have petitioned Rome for to lift certain penalties so they may absolve certain serious sins. He said these petitions were granted, and that Rome stated all was “good and licit” regarding the handling. It is possible he is straight-up lying (hence the “dice roll”), however this suggests that Rome does not consider society confessions universally invalid (possibly valid only on cases directly petitioned).

Simply put, you have not made your case that the SSPX offer futile confession in all circumstances. The best that can be said is that it is uncertain. You have only proven that the SSPX have no permission or authority to offer confession, which I do not dispute. However, no ruling exists specifically declaring their confession invalid.

Heaven and Hell are in the balance. No one should trust their salvation to the “dice roll”.

 

[Lormar]

Simply put, you have not made your case that the SSPX offer futile confession in all circumstances. The best that can be said is that it is uncertain. You have only proven that the SSPX have no permission or authority to offer confession, which I do not dispute. However, no ruling exists specifically declaring their confession invalid.

What do you need a ruling on? A priest needs jurisdiction from the local bishop to dispense a valid absolution. The SSPX priests, as far as I know, do not have faculties from the bishops of the dioceses that they operate in.

Heaven and Hell are in the balance. No one should trust their salvation to the “dice roll”.

Indeed.

 

[porthos11]

Simply put, you have not made your case that the SSPX offer futile confession in all circumstances. The best that can be said is that it is uncertain. You have only proven that the SSPX have no permission or authority to offer confession, which I do not dispute. However, no ruling exists specifically declaring their confession invalid.

Heaven and Hell are in the balance. No one should trust their salvation to the “dice roll”.

If it’s been proven that the SSPX have no permission or authority to offer confession, then no further ruling is necessary from Rome or anyone else to declare their confession invalid. One can draw this conclusion from the law itself:

Can. 966 §1 For the valid absolution of sins, it is required that, in addition to the power of order, the minister has the faculty to exercise that power in respect of the faithful to whom he gives absolution.
§2 A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself, or by a concession issued by the competent authority in accordance with can. 969.

Can. 969 §1** Only the local Ordinary is competent to give to any priests whomsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any whomsoever of the faithful.** Priests who are members of religious institutes may not, however, use this faculty without the permission, at least presumed, of their Superior.

The only concessions granted would be to those in danger of death and those who are truly ignorant or in error. I, for example, knowing what I know, cannot go to the SSPX and expect to be validly absolved.