Is an SSPX Confirmation valid?

[Cherub]

(I posed this question to an apologist but I don’t know whether it will be answered, so I am posting the same thing here for now.)

I have a friend who will soon be receiving the sacrament of Confirmation – but she attends only SSPX chapels and her Confirmation is being done by an SSPX bishop. My questions are:

1. does the Roman Catholic Church consider such Confirmations (and their other sacraments) valid? and,
2. may I without committing mortal sin attend SSPX Masses when visiting my friend? (or even just because I love the traditional Latin Mass?)

 

[demolitionman65]

My ballpark guess: Valid, but not licit.

 

[Benedictus]

1. does the Roman Catholic Church consider such Confirmations (and their other sacraments) valid? and,

Since it is being performed by a bishop (albeit an excommunicated one), the Confirmation is probably valid. If it were being done by a S.S.P.X priest, then it would be invalid. I am not a canon lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt.

As for other sacraments, it depends upon which sacrament. Their confessions (except in danger of death) and marriages are certainly invalid.

1. may I without committing mortal sin attend SSPX Masses when visiting my friend? (or even just because I love the traditional Latin Mass?)

This is a sticky question. I believe there is a letter from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei that recommends against attending Mass in their chapels, but notes that it is not forbidden and would fulfill the Sunday obligation.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

(I posed this question to an apologist but I don’t know whether it will be answered, so I am posting the same thing here for now.)

I have a friend who will soon be receiving the sacrament of Confirmation – but she attends only SSPX chapels and her Confirmation is being done by an SSPX bishop. My questions are:

1. does the Roman Catholic Church consider such Confirmations (and their other sacraments) valid? and,
2. may I without committing mortal sin attend SSPX Masses when visiting my friend? (or even just because I love the traditional Latin Mass?)

Valid as long as the Bishop is validly Ordained Confirmation would be valid, however illicit. All Bishops of the Catholic Church are assigned a See or diocese. The SSPX Bishops do not have a See or diocese. Therefore they have no jurisdiction. Your friend must first receive permission from her own Bishop in order for her to be licitly Confirmed by another Bishop. Make sure she understands this. Another Bishop may not licitly administer Sacraments in the diocese of another Bishop without his permission. (emergency exceptions noted)

 

[Cherub]

Thanks for the replies so far. In the past I have read all of the “valid but not licit” information as it pertains to the Society of Saint Pius X – but it is so confusing to me that I forget what is what.

It sounds as if there is nothing wrong with going to Mass at an SSPX chapel. As Benedictus said, Ecclesia Dei does advise against it, but doesn’t seem to forbid it at all – and it would satisfy the Sunday obligation.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Cherub:

Thanks for the replies so far. In the past I have read all of the “valid but not licit” information as it pertains to the Society of Saint Pius X – but it is so confusing to me that I forget what is what.

It sounds as if there is nothing wrong with going to Mass at an SSPX chapel. As Benedictus said, Ecclesia Dei does advise against it, but doesn’t seem to forbid it at all – and it would satisfy the Sunday obligation.

It would satisfy the obligation. I would only add that one should attend only if a valid and licit Mass was not available.

 

[Cherub]

Br. Rich SFO:

It would satisfy the obligation. I would only add that one should attend only if a valid and licit Mass was not available.

What if there are plenty of valid and licit Masses available and I still go? Is it mortal sin?

 

[TNT]

Br. Rich SFO:

It would satisfy the obligation. I would only add that one should attend only if a valid and licit Mass was not available.

This is CORRECT. It normally does NOT.
I have an SSPX wife. I attend with her during the week, but Sunday is a no no.
It has to be impossible to attend a Mass under an approved Bishop’s diocese before a Sunday Obligation would be met at an SSPX. Remember, they are Illicit. Just HOW would you meet a Sunday obligation by attending an Illicit Mass when a Licit one is available? Not possible.
The Commission Ecclesia Dei said:

"The Masses the SSPX celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing. (Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2) * The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called ‘Tridentine’ Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses*."

 In case anyone needs a clarification, "morally illicit" means the same as "sinful."

Since an SSPX admits that their bishops have NO jurisdiction, then confimation is likely INVALID outside of an impossiblity in a Catholic diocese.

I wish with all my heart that it was otherwise, and did for a while. But reality is reality whether we accept it or not.
For obvious reasons I spend 9 months studying this at an obsessive level. Unless one becomes Sede-V. there is no escape.
A pope cannot promulgate a Rite of the Catholic Church that is illicit OR invalid, and still be the Vicar of Christ Himself. This is ground 0 for the Sede-V.
The SSPX is in theological and canonical schism and hanging out in a limbo of contradiction and illicity.
I believe they are treated unjustly for sure, in some ways, but that has NOTHING to do with obedience to the Vicar of Christ on His declaration.
I am so sorry for all of this, as it tears me to pieces weekly, believe me.

 

[TNT]

Can the Sheriff of Dallas County go over 6 Counties and start arresting people and issuing traffic tickets?
How can a Bishop who admits no jurisdiction invade another Bishop’s diocese who he admits HAS jurisdiction and start Confirming against that Bishop?:whacky:

 

[BulldogCath]

If they want the sacraments in the Tradional rite-I for one and I know many here probably think this is a no-no-but with the pressure on my wife and I from our in laws and other friends who want nothing at all to do with the Novus Ordo church (as they feel that they are not wanted, not the other way around), we had our child recieve at our Church and then later on at a Traditional chapel. I figured I had all of our bases covered and many still question the validity (that is the intent) of the Baptisms and Confirmations (no longer a soldier of christ) not to mention the Blood of our lord.

Now I have questions but would not leave my church for obvious reasons, I just wish the next Pope would bring the Traditionals and Conservatives back into the fold and care less about these other false faiths. It would for one make my house a more peaceful place during the holidays!

(I posed this question to an apologist but I don’t know whether it will be answered, so I am posting the same thing here for now.)

I have a friend who will soon be receiving the sacrament of Confirmation – but she attends only SSPX chapels and her Confirmation is being done by an SSPX bishop. My questions are:

1. does the Roman Catholic Church consider such Confirmations (and their other sacraments) valid? and,
2. may I without committing mortal sin attend SSPX Masses when visiting my friend? (or even just because I love the traditional Latin Mass?)

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

BulldogCath:

If they want the sacraments in the Tradional rite-I for one and I know many here probably think this is a no-no-but with the pressure on my wife and I from our in laws and other friends who want nothing at all to do with the Novus Ordo church (as they feel that they are not wanted, not the other way around), we had our child recieve at our Church and then later on at a Traditional chapel. I figured I had all of our bases covered and many still question the validity (that is the intent) of the Baptisms and Confirmations (no longer a soldier of christ) not to mention the Blood of our lord.

Now I have questions but would not leave my church for obvious reasons, I just wish the next Pope would bring the Traditionals and Conservatives back into the fold and care less about these other false faiths. It would for one make my house a more peaceful place during the holidays!

I do hope you are not saying that you attempted to have your child Baptized or Confirmed twice! This would be a grave offence against the Sacraments according to the Canon Law of the Church. Which brings up an interesting question do the “Tradional rite” Catholics follow the 1912 Canon Law or the 1983? In either case both the old and the new law forbid attempting to receive Baptism, Confirmation and Ordination a second time.

 

[Brendan]

TNT:

Since an SSPX admits that their bishops have NO jurisdiction, then confimation is likely INVALID outside of an impossiblity in a Catholic diocese.

Jurisdiction has no bearing on the Validity of Sacraments provided by a Bishop.

A Bishop, by virtue of their Ordination, has the full Authority of the Apostles and requires no jurisdicition to validily Confirm or Absolve.

A priest, on the other hand, gains the Authority to Confirm or Absolve from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop.

So any Confirmations done by an SSPX Bishop would be valid, but any Confirmations done by an SSPX Priest would not.

In any case, the Sacrament would be illicit. If a person repents of their involvment with the illicitiy, they would only need to Confess and recieve Absolution ; they would not, in fact cannot, be re-Confirmed.

 

[Brendan]

As did the Council of Trent.

And Catholic who believes the Sacrament of Baptism is not Valid under the new Rite is denying the Council of Trent, and is guilty of heresy.

 

[BulldogCath]

No only once-was considering it but after hearing about what you said some time back my wife and I had the baptism in our local church.
Br. Rich SFO:

I do hope you are not saying that you attempted to have your child Baptized or Confirmed twice! This would be a grave offence against the Sacraments according to the Canon Law of the Church. Which brings up an interesting question do the “Tradional rite” Catholics follow the 1912 Canon Law or the 1983? In either case both the old and the new law forbid attempting to receive Baptism, Confirmation and Ordination a second time.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Br. Rich SFO:

I do hope you are not saying that you attempted to have your child Baptized or Confirmed twice! This would be a grave offence against the Sacraments according to the Canon Law of the Church.

Friends who now go regularily to an SSPX chapel tell me their priests will perform the portions of the rubrics (for baptism, confirmation, even matrimony) dropped in more recent times. In my understanding they approach all that in the same way as is still done for the installation of godparents at a later point when an infant has had an emergency baptism, that is, what was done originally was sufficient for the sacrament, but more could be done to “polish” things.