Letter From Archbishop of Davao Diocese to the SSPX

[giuseppeTO]

All things are possible, but what has Rome said on the subject? It has never even raised the idea that the priests are excommunicated, therefore seeing as this subject has never been raised by Rome in over 20 years it is unlikely to be the case.

Can 1378- Applies if the person cannot give valid sacramental absolution, to answer whether this is true or not one must decided whether the SSPX can give valid absolution or not. That opens a whole can of worms with canonist’s disagreeing on whether they can or cannot do so.

Can 1381- I cannot see that they have ‘usurped’ an ecclesiastical position, they do not claim to be parish priests or a bishop of so and so diocese, so by definition they cannot have usurped anything.

Can 1384- Is probably the only canon which could without any debate apply to the situation, the issue then becomes whether they are acting unlawfully or not and what a ‘just penalty’ is? It is unlikely to be excommunication but something less serious.

That’s merely my thoughts on it from a legal point of view.

I am of the same mind. Remember that the priestly suspensions are 36 years old … older than the current Code of Canon Law. If no bishop has attempted to bring adjudications against the violation of these canons, that would seem to indicate that either there is a degree of skepticism that an adjudication against the SSPX would be successful or that the Holy See has let it be known through channels that all such actions concerning the Society are reserved to the Holy See.

 

[thistle]

All things are possible, but what has Rome said on the subject? It has never even raised the idea that the priests are excommunicated, therefore seeing as this subject has never been raised by Rome in over 20 years it is unlikely to be the case.

Can 1378- Applies if the person cannot give valid sacramental absolution, to answer whether this is true or not one must decided whether the SSPX can give valid absolution or not. That opens a whole can of worms with canonist’s disagreeing on whether they can or cannot do so.

Can 1381- I cannot see that they have ‘usurped’ an ecclesiastical position, they do not claim to be parish priests or a bishop of so and so diocese, so by definition they cannot have usurped anything.

Can 1384- Is probably the only canon which could without any debate apply to the situation, the issue then becomes whether they are acting unlawfully or not and what a ‘just penalty’ is? It is unlikely to be excommunication but something less serious.

That’s merely my thoughts on it from a legal point of view.

With regard to canon 1378 wouldn’t this apply if SSPX priests have had their faculties suspended. Please correct me if I am wrong but I thought that SSPX priests are not permitted to handle marriage, baptisms, or hear Confessions.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Can 1378- Applies if the person cannot give valid sacramental absolution, to answer whether this is true or not one must decided whether the SSPX can give valid absolution or not. That opens a whole can of worms with canonist’s disagreeing on whether they can or cannot do so.

Priests need faculties from the Local Ordinary to be able to absolve validly. Given the situation, I am pretty sure that they do not have such faculties. Only bishops have universal faculties but again the Local Ordinary may remove the faculties of a bishop in his diocese. The bishop will ordinarily have the faculties until the Local Ordinary says he doesn’t have it in his diocese.

 

[ConstantineTG]

With regard to canon 1378 wouldn’t this apply if SSPX priests have had their faculties suspended. Please correct me if I am wrong but I thought that SSPX priests are not permitted to handle marriage, baptisms, or hear Confessions.

They can do baptisms, anyone can do baptisms. Of course it will be illicit, but valid. Marriage and confessions both need faculties from the Church which they obviously do not have.

 

[giuseppeTO]

They can do baptisms, anyone can do baptisms. Of course it will be illicit, but valid. Marriage and confessions both need faculties from the Church which they obviously do not have.

I’ve never heard of an illicit Baptism. Even a Buddhist can baptize a Catholic.

 

[jwinch2]

I believe the comments on baptism to be correct but would add the caveat that they need to be in the proper form as in a Trinitarian baptism. Obviously, this would not be an issue for the members of SSPX, but it might for a Buddhist.

Peace,

 

[JM3]

With regard to canon 1378 wouldn’t this apply if SSPX priests have had their faculties suspended. Please correct me if I am wrong but I thought that SSPX priests are not permitted to handle marriage, baptisms, or hear Confessions.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM

Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.

 

[jmj1984]

I am of the same mind. Remember that the priestly suspensions are 36 years old … older than the current Code of Canon Law. If no bishop has attempted to bring adjudications against the violation of these canons, that would seem to indicate that either there is a degree of skepticism that an adjudication against the SSPX would be successful or that the Holy See has let it be known through channels that all such actions concerning the Society are reserved to the Holy See.

I agree, if the suspensions are older than the Code or the actions leading to them are that also brings up the issue of whether the Code is retroactive or not.

 

[JM3]

I agree, if the suspensions are older than the Code or the actions leading to them are that also brings up the issue of whether the Code is retroactive or not.

Can. 1313 §1. If a law is changed after a delict has been committed, the law more favorable to the accused is to be applied.

§2. If a later law abolishes a law or at least the penalty, the penalty immediately ceases.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ve never heard of an illicit Baptism. Even a Buddhist can baptize a Catholic.

Under ordinary conditions only the clergy may baptize. The clause of “anyone” extends only in cases of necessity. So it means if its under ordinary circumstances and its not a regular cleric that does the baptism, then its illicit (not according to law).

 

[jmj1984]

With regard to canon 1378 wouldn’t this apply if SSPX priests have had their faculties suspended. Please correct me if I am wrong but I thought that SSPX priests are not permitted to handle marriage, baptisms, or hear Confessions.

I said it was a can of worms because of the issue of ‘eclessia suplet’ or ‘the church supplies’, i.e they argue that the church gives them jurisdiction. Therefore one would have to determine whether this was true or not and that entails a very long and very detailed discussion which pits several canonists against each other.

An example of the issue is here:
(Regarding Marriage)

Fr Z says one thing wdtprs.com/blog/2008/12/quaeritur-sspx-wedding/

This blogger says another renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410

The official view on the matter is expressed in the following quote ’

His Eminence
Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos
President, Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED)
Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio
00120 VATICAN CITY

Monday of Holy Week
Anno Domini 2008

Your Eminence,

I [Mershon] have compiled as reference numerous public interviews, both print and television, where you were quoted as stating that the case of the Society of St. Pius X “is not a formal schism” and other words to that effect.

Q: Is this your mere private opinion, or the official teaching of the Catholic Church in your official capacity as head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei?

PCED: “Statements made by Cardinal Castrillón need to be understood in a technical, canonical sense. Stating that the Society of St. Pius X “is not in formal schism” is to say that there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism. Up to now, the Church has sought to show the maximum charity, courtesy and consideration to all those involved with the hope that such a declaration will not eventually be necessary.”

Would you please clarify the following for me in this private correspondence so that I can ensure that my family and I are following the current teaching of the Church on this specific matter?

Q: Does the Catholic Church currently hold that the priests and bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are in formal schism with the Catholic Church?

PCED: …

“The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese of religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 265) and also because those ordained after the schismatic Episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop.

“Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144)

“While it is true that participation in the Mass at chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism” (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church. While we hope and pray for a reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” cannot recommend that members of the faithful frequent their chapels for the reasons which we have outlined above We deeply regret this situation and pray that soon a reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X with the Church may come about, but until such time the explanations which we have given remain in force.”

Q: Does the Catholic Church currently hold that the situation of the Society of St. Pius X is not one for ecumenical dialogue because the Society of St. Pius X is an internal matter within the Catholic Church?

PCED: “Up to now the Catholic Church has acted as if the situation of the Society of St. Pius X is an internal matter within the Catholic Church and not a matter of ecumenical dialogue.”

A: What level of authority do your answers to this private correspondence hold?

PCED: “As we already stated to you in our letter of 4 July 2007: “This Pontifical Commission does its best to transmit responses which are in full accord with the magisterium and the present canonical practices of the Catholic Church. One should accept them with docility and can act upon them with moral certainty.” We would further add that no dicastery of the Holy See will give other responses than those which we have given here.”

The Letter is slightly out of date (pre-dating the lifting of the ex-communications) but can be found at Fr Z’s blog here wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/guest-contribution-qa-with-the-pont-comm-ecclesia-dei-about-sspx-schism-and-sacraments/

You can see from the comments box the amount of the controversy the whole thing generates.

The EWTN Q&A to a reader question here ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum9&recnu=8&number=612506 also adds to the problem of certainty

At the end of the day whilst I have an opinion on the matter I cannot state as a fact what Rome believes because I simply do not know.

 

[jmj1984]

Can. 1313 §1. If a law is changed after a delict has been committed, the law more favorable to the accused is to be applied.

§2. If a later law abolishes a law or at least the penalty, the penalty immediately ceases.

That doesn’t help because we are talking about something pre-dating the entire code, including that canon. That canon talks about changes in laws, i.e particular laws, not a wholesale change of the code itself.

 

[JReducation]

I believe the comments on baptism to be correct but would add the caveat that they need to be in the proper form as in a Trinitarian baptism. Obviously, this would not be an issue for the members of SSPX, but it might for a Buddhist.

Peace,

If the form is incorrect, the baptism is invalid. Illicit would be grandma’ baptizing her grandchildren without her daughter’s permission.

I agree, if the suspensions are older than the Code or the actions leading to them are that also brings up the issue of whether the Code is retroactive or not.

Canon Law is not retroactive. Whatever is the law at the time of the crime is what is applied.

In this case, the bishop can make a big stink about these priests hearing confessions without faculties from him. He can appeal to Canon Law that they are walking a fine line that can lead to excommunication.

Will he do this? I doubt it. Most bishops know that there is delicate dialogue in progress and that the Vatican will simply postpone the complaint until it resolves the issue with the SSPX.

Also, most bishops are not eager to excommunicate anyone. They just want any Catholic in their diocese to follow the same rules as every other Catholic. in their circumstance.

In this case, the SSPX must follow the same rules that the FSSP, Dominicans, Sisters of St. Joseph, Franciscans, Jesuits and others must follow. Anyone of these groups could have received the same letter if they had entered a diocese without permission.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[louis91766]

If the form is incorrect, the baptism is invalid. Illicit would be grandma’ baptizing her grandchildren without her daughter’s permission.

Canon Law is not retroactive. Whatever is the law at the time of the crime is what is applied.

In this case, the bishop can make a big stink about these priests hearing confessions without faculties from him. He can appeal to Canon Law that they are walking a fine line that can lead to excommunication.

Will he do this? I doubt it. Most bishops know that there is delicate dialogue in progress and that the Vatican will simply postpone the complaint until it resolves the issue with the SSPX.

Also, most bishops are not eager to excommunicate anyone. They just want any Catholic in their diocese to follow the same rules as every other Catholic. in their circumstance.

In this case, the SSPX must follow the same rules that the FSSP, Dominicans, Sisters of St. Joseph, Franciscans, Jesuits and others must follow. Anyone of these groups could have received the same letter if they had entered a diocese without permission.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Are SSPX confessions valid?

 

[Cristiano]

Are SSPX confessions valid?

In some specific cases they can be valid; however, the validity is associated to the faculties granted by the Bishop. Usually lay people that are under a Bishop can only be validly absolved by priests who have received their faculties from such a Bishop; however, such a statement does not cover all the possible scenarios.

 

[jmj1984]

Canon Law is not retroactive. Whatever is the law at the time of the crime is what is applied.

Br Jr

Thanks for the clarification, how I wish I could learn something about canon law i.e do a course on it

 

[ConstantineTG]

Br Jr

Thanks for the clarification, how I wish I could learn something about canon law i.e do a course on it

Go enroll on a course that Bro. JR is teaching

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are SSPX confessions valid?

Refer to my earlier post.

Priests need faculties from the Local Ordinary to be able to absolve validly. Given the situation, I am pretty sure that they do not have such faculties. Only bishops have universal faculties but again the Local Ordinary may remove the faculties of a bishop in his diocese. The bishop will ordinarily have the faculties until the Local Ordinary says he doesn’t have it in his diocese.

Additionally, they can receive faculties from their bishop but only for those within their Society. So unless a person is part of their society (a lay order perhaps), then one cannot validly receive absolution from one of their priests under normal circumstances.

 

[jmj1984]

Go enroll on a course that Bro. JR is teaching

If only Now I just need to get a transatlantic flight and a few thousand dollars

 

[ConstantineTG]

If only Now I just need to get a transatlantic flight and a few thousand dollars

If you can afford it, I think its worth it
I’d love to sit down and listen to Bro. JR, formally or informally.