L
louis91766
Guest
Do you have to reconfess all sins which were confessed to a SSPX priest?
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Yes. If they do not have the ability to absolve, then the sins were not absolved.
J
jmj1984
Guest
Ha I wish being a poor uni student sadly notIf you can afford it, I think its worth it
I’d love to sit down and listen to Bro. JR, formally or informally.
Listening to an informed opinion that’s always charitably conveyed is always a pleasure
P
ProVobis
Guest
If you truly believed that you were forgiven at the time, I would think you may not need to, but just to be on the safe side, if you still remember the sins, I would reconfess to a priest who has faculties.
J
JReducation
Guest
All confessions are valid. There is nothing in Church law that says that confession is invalid. People confess to their psychologists and bartenders every day.
Can the priests of the SSPX absolve your sins? Now that’s the $25,000.00 question. The answer is not as black and white as people want to make it, neither those on the side of the SSPX or those against them.
We have to begin with an a priori understanding of the Church. The Church is loving mother who always leaves a door open and a light on for her children. What does this mean? It means that the Church always tries to protect the penitent. She’ll deal later with the priest or let God do it.
How does this work? Four ways.
First:
You can receive absolution form any priest, suspended, dismissed or dispensed if you have an emergency and there is no priest around who has faculties. The Church supplies the faculties for absolution in that case.
Second:
If a person goes to confession to a priest who is suspended and the person does not know that this priest does not have the license to absolve, the Church provides faculties to protect the person. The person is assuming that the priest can absolve. Had he known that the priest does not have the right to hear confessions, this person would have gone to another priest. Again, the Church looks after the penitent. God will deal with the priest. That’s not for us to deal with or for us to judge the state of his soul.
Third:
There have been times when a priest of the SSPX has asked a bishop for permission to absolve a sin that is reserved for the local bishop, not one of the SSPX bishops, the diocesan bishop. The diocesan bishop can grant that permission. That’s kind of a one-time lincense. A good example is abortion. Abortion is reserved to the bishop. However, the bishop can delegate any priest to absolve it. Since the SSPX have no canonical place in the Church, they are not incardinated into any diocese or any religious community either. When they get one of these cases, they can’t assume that they have delegation to absolve. They have to ask. Once again, the Church, because she is a wonderful and loving mother will grant this SSPX priest the faculties to absolve this person from this grave sin. This is a one time permit only, granted by the bishop of the local diocese. This has happened.
Fourth:
Now we get into that space where people begin to squirm. No Catholic should be confessing to a priest who is suspended, regardless of why he’s suspended. It can be an SSPX priest, a priest who had an affair with the butcher’s wife, the priest who shot his mouth off once too often, or the priest who failed to do the dishes and ticked off his superior. If the lay person knows that Father X is suspended, the lay person should find a priest who has faculties to absolve. To go to Father X is to step onto a slippery slope. Depending on how badly you need to go to confession, your reason for going to Father X may not be good enough. In which case, your confession is no more effective than telling all of your troubles to your psychologist. And you’re encouraging Father X to continue to do something illegal. It’s called “supply and demand.”
Since we do not know how God is looking at our situation, we only know how we feel about it, my suggestion is to go to confession to a priest who has faculties. At the end of the day, it does not matter whether Father wears a cheese cake while he celebrates mass or chants like an angel. What matters is that I confess my sin and that I am forgiven. I could care less whether Father is a saint or the devil himself. If he’s a priest and he has permission to absolve, bring him on. He’s the guy I need. I would not go to someone who is iffy.
What makes it iffy? The fact that I’m not dying and Father X is not the only priest in town. There are some who find all kinds of loopholes in the law. My theory is this. Be careful with loopholes. Some of them are really Black Holes.
Let me tell you something. I took two-years of canon law in the seminary. I’m still no wiser in it. It’s a very hard area of study. I had the “pleasure” (notice quotation marks) of having to do this twice. I went through the Canon Law from 1979 to 1981. In 1983, they revised it. :crying:Br Jr
Thanks for the clarification, how I wish I could learn something about canon law i.e do a course on it
Canon Lawyers, like civil lawyers spend many years in school. Usually, you get an undergraduate degree, then a four-year Master’s, which includes two years of Canon Law, then you stay on for at least another two years to get your Licentiate (JCL) then another two years for your Doctorate in Law (JCD).
I’m very happy to have stayed in Mystical and Ascetical Theology, thank you very much.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
jmj1984
Guest
Br JrLet me tell you something. I took two-years of canon law in the seminary. I’m still no wiser in it. It’s a very hard area of study. I had the “pleasure” (notice quotation marks) of having to do this twice. I went through the Canon Law from 1979 to 1981. In 1983, they revised it. :crying:
Canon Lawyers, like civil lawyers spend many years in school. Usually, you get an undergraduate degree, then a four-year Master’s, which includes two years of Canon Law, then you stay on for at least another two years to get your Licentiate (JCL) then another two years for your Doctorate in Law (JCD).
I’m very happy to have stayed in Mystical and Ascetical Theology, thank you very much.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
HAHA I know the feeling, I’m doing Law and we’re going through the Treaty of Lisbon (Eu Law), needless to say they felt the need to re-number all the treaty articles and change everything so half the textbooks are out of date and our lecturers still get confused with the article numbers
I might do a course on Canon law at some point, maybe at seminary if I go, hopefully it’ll be easier seeing as I’ve done law before.
On an unrelated point what did they do between the closing of V II and the issuing of the new code? The old Code banned things the new one and V II allowed e.g communion to non-catholics, albeit only Orthodox but even this was banned under the old, was that law simply revised or was it simply ignored?
J
JReducation
Guest
If you read Canon Law, no matter which revision, when a law replaces another law, it ends in a disclaimer that that points to the fact that “as of the time of this promulgation” this is the rule.Br Jr
HAHA I know the feeling, I’m doing Law and we’re going through the Treaty of Lisbon (Eu Law), needless to say they felt the need to re-number all the treaty articles and change everything so half the textbooks are out of date and our lecturers still get confused with the article numbers
I might do a course on Canon law at some point, maybe at seminary if I go, hopefully it’ll be easier seeing as I’ve done law before.
On an unrelated point what did they do between the closing of V II and the issuing of the new code? The old Code banned things the new one and V II allowed e.g communion to non-catholics, albeit only Orthodox but even this was banned under the old, was that law simply revised or was it simply ignored?
We simply stopped doing somethings and we started doing other things. By the Feast of Pentecost 1984 (if I remember correctly), everyone had to transition from the code of 1917 to the code of 1983.
The same thing happened in 1917. It introduced new laws and eliminated old laws. A date was set to allow everyone enough time to read the new code and to allow for commentaries to be published and you just dropped the old and picked up the new.
You have to remember, Canon Law is not dogma. Therefore, even though it must respect dogma, meaning that it cannot legislate anything contrary to the faith of the Church, it is really jurisprudence at its finest. You find very few references to doctrines and virtues in Canon Law. The one word that never appears in Canon Law is “love”.
Basically, you’re not being asked to do this and avoid that out of love or out of faith. You’re being commanded out of obedience. This has nothing to do with infallibility. It’s all about authority.
Christ is the supreme law giver. The pope is the Living Law. Christ’s law lives in his heart and mind. It is his job to decree policies, disciplines and practices that will help the Church follow Christ’s law.
For example, denying Holy Communion to non-Catholic Christians was never a point of theology. It was a point of law based on theology. If we were not in communion, then receiving Holy Communion made no sense. Because it made a statement that was not true. That’s why it was prohibited.
By 1983, Bl. John Paul comes to the conclusion that non-Catholic Christians and Catholics can be in communion on some points. He relaxes the law to say that with the permission of the bishop, Holy Communion may be given to a non-Catholic Christian who believes in the real presence. The caveat is that by believing in the real presence, the person is in communion with the Catholic Church on the matter of the Eucharist. The person must ask for it. It is not to be offered. The Holy Eucharist is not finger food that you offer to everyone at the party. Only a bishop or his delegate can grant the permission.
For example, at Bl. John Paul’s funeral and at Pope Benedict’s installation, Brother Roger of Taize received Holy Communion from Cardinal Ratzinger and from Pope Benedict. Brother had already asked for permission and Cardinal Ratzinger, as the Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith, felt certain that Brother Roger believed in the real presence. He granted the permission. Brother Roger was in communion with the Catholic Church’s belief about the Eucharist and many other points too. Prior to 1983, Cardinal Ratzinger would not have had the authority to grant this request. Only the pope could have done so, because he’s not bound to canon law.
In the Catholic legal system, the person who promulgates the law is not bound by the law. It is a very medieval system of doing things. The monarch is not subject to the laws that he creates. He is only subject to Divine Law.
Today, we think of most monarchies as European monarchies, which are constitutional monarchies, not absolute. The Church’s monarchy would be more like that which you would see in some Arab countries,such as Jordan. They too preserve the Medieval concept where the monarch is not beneath the law.
This boggles the mind of most Americans and Europeans. Our systems of government are based on the consent of the governed. Not so among Catholics and many Arabs. That’s one of the points that we actually have in common and which they appreciate about Catholicism. They can deal with the pope as an absolute monarchy. This is easy to understand.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
jmj1984
Guest
Br JrIf you read Canon Law, no matter which revision, when a law replaces another law, it ends in a disclaimer that that points to the fact that “as of the time of this promulgation” this is the rule.
We simply stopped doing somethings and we started doing other things. By the Feast of Pentecost 1984 (if I remember correctly), everyone had to transition from the code of 1917 to the code of 1983.
The same thing happened in 1917. It introduced new laws and eliminated old laws. A date was set to allow everyone enough time to read the new code and to allow for commentaries to be published and you just dropped the old and picked up the new.
You have to remember, Canon Law is not dogma. Therefore, even though it must respect dogma, meaning that it cannot legislate anything contrary to the faith of the Church, it is really jurisprudence at its finest. You find very few references to doctrines and virtues in Canon Law. The one word that never appears in Canon Law is “love”.
Basically, you’re not being asked to do this and avoid that out of love or out of faith. You’re being commanded out of obedience. This has nothing to do with infallibility. It’s all about authority.
Christ is the supreme law giver. The pope is the Living Law. Christ’s law lives in his heart and mind. It is his job to decree policies, disciplines and practices that will help the Church follow Christ’s law.
For example, denying Holy Communion to non-Catholic Christians was never a point of theology. It was a point of law based on theology. If we were not in communion, then receiving Holy Communion made no sense. Because it made a statement that was not true. That’s why it was prohibited.
By 1983, Bl. John Paul comes to the conclusion that non-Catholic Christians and Catholics can be in communion on some points. He relaxes the law to say that with the permission of the bishop, Holy Communion may be given to a non-Catholic Christian who believes in the real presence. The caveat is that by believing in the real presence, the person is in communion with the Catholic Church on the matter of the Eucharist. The person must ask for it. It is not to be offered. The Holy Eucharist is not finger food that you offer to everyone at the party. Only a bishop or his delegate can grant the permission.
For example, at Bl. John Paul’s funeral and at Pope Benedict’s installation, Brother Roger of Taize received Holy Communion from Cardinal Ratzinger and from Pope Benedict. Brother had already asked for permission and Cardinal Ratzinger, as the Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith, felt certain that Brother Roger believed in the real presence. He granted the permission. Brother Roger was in communion with the Catholic Church’s belief about the Eucharist and many other points too. Prior to 1983, Cardinal Ratzinger would not have had the authority to grant this request. Only the pope could have done so, because he’s not bound to canon law.
In the Catholic legal system, the person who promulgates the law is not bound by the law. It is a very medieval system of doing things. The monarch is not subject to the laws that he creates. He is only subject to Divine Law.
Today, we think of most monarchies as European monarchies, which are constitutional monarchies, not absolute. The Church’s monarchy would be more like that which you would see in some Arab countries,such as Jordan. They too preserve the Medieval concept where the monarch is not beneath the law.
This boggles the mind of most Americans and Europeans. Our systems of government are based on the consent of the governed. Not so among Catholics and many Arabs. That’s one of the points that we actually have in common and which they appreciate about Catholicism. They can deal with the pope as an absolute monarchy. This is easy to understand.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Thanks for that
J
james_marcou
Guest
I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation concerning the SSPX. As has been pointed out before, one is not ipso facto excommunicated by ordaining priest without a papal mandate. Canon law tells us that doing so, IS AN ACT OF DISOBEDIENCE, and therefore the maximum punishment was to be SUSPENSION.
Unfortunately, JP 2 wanted to make an example out of the Society and therefore went beyond canon law and declared the Bishops excommunicated.
I believe that only if the sspx were in FULL communion, and not only partial communion then and only then would they have to have permission from him to be in “HIS” diocese.
PS The bible states: “By their fruits, you will know them.” In our local sspx society chapel. With about 300 parishioners, we have 4 men in the sspx seminary and have one young lady that is presently entering a traditional Dominican convent. How many Novus Ordo parishes can make this claim? I would suggest that most of the respondents should check out the sspx positions and also check canon law before simply reiterating the “party Line.”
Dominus vobiscum
Unfortunately, JP 2 wanted to make an example out of the Society and therefore went beyond canon law and declared the Bishops excommunicated.
Code:
Secondly, according to the canon law, it says that if there is a grave necessity that an Archbishop may consecrate bishops without papal mandate. The best example of this, is in China. Canon law further states that EVEN IF THERE IS NO ACTUAL GRAVE EMERGENCY, but if the Bishop truly felt that there indeed was, NO PENALTY IS TO BE ATTACHED!
Archbishop of Davao wants it both ways. He wants to tell the sspx that it must have his permission to operate in his diocese, but yet feels that they are ouside the church. If this is true, then he has no right whatsoever in saying anything to the sspx. And as another member had stated does he send this type of letter to the Protestant leaders in his Archdiocese?
Code:
Pax Tecum,
James, SFODominus vobiscum
C
Cristiano
Guest
I think that here you are going against the principle of non-contradiction by saying that the SSPX is not in schism (and I agree with you) but then you say that it can act as a schismatic group (and I disagree). This is invoking for your argument the same assumptions that you call invalid in the argument of the Archbishop of Davo.
J
jmj1984
Guest
As much as I sympathise with the SSPX, proselytism for them is discouraged on this forum, you’re going to want to tone down your language if you want to use this forum.
J
jwinch2
Guest
A Franciscan supporting disobedience. Never thought I would see that…
J
jwinch2
Guest
Not to mention that a Franciscan supporting disobedience to the Pope or another Bishop is something I never thought I would see…
T
TrueLight
Guest
Oooh. Wait tilll Br JR see this.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
I have found this thread fascinating reading as a case in point of an internal Roman Catholic problem.
There can be no doubt but that the authority of the local Bishop is ABSOLUTE. His permission and approval are always needed. That goes for the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church etc. This is how it was in the early Church and throughout the Church’s life.
The SSPX knows all about this and would be the first to uphold the absolute authority of its own bishops. They affrm the authority of the Pope as well. And the SSPX knows that full communion and ecclesial unity can only be based not only in terms of the Faith, but also in terms of the fulfillment of canonical law and ecclesial obedience.
That obedience can never be founded on the basis of our own interpretation of whether the Bishop is right to say this or that. That is not what Catholics are called to do.
In fact, to read SSPX explanations is proof enough that the spirit of true schism dominates this group, despite its protestations to the contrary. The proof is in the pudding - the SSPX wants to pass judgement on a bishop’s right expect that what they do is grounded upon that bishop’s apostolic authority.
That isn’t Catholic - it’s simply schismatic in the true sense of the word.
To oppose legitimate episcopal authority (regardless of how many seminarians or postulants to the religious life one has) is to put oneself out of the Catholic Church.
That is how all the Popes and Saints that the SSPX constantly refers to would see it as well.
It is time for the SSPX to become Catholic in the way the Catholic Church, the Church that Christ has promised He will always be with, wishes it to be - and not accordiing to its own self-will.
I don’t know what more the Pope can do to invite them back into full communion with the Catholic Church. It is time for the SSPX to stop acting like a spoiled ecclesial brat and take the initiative to reconcile with Rome once and for all.
The SSPX and the Catholic Church are at a crossroads. All Catholics should shun their chapels to let the SSPX know that the proverbial ball is in its court now and unless they show some goodwill on their end, they can go and form their own “church.”
And if the SSPX really does believe that Vatican II was heretical - then they should clarify what they truly do believe about it and also about when they feel that Christ and the Holy Spirit have left the Catholic Church.
Alex
There can be no doubt but that the authority of the local Bishop is ABSOLUTE. His permission and approval are always needed. That goes for the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church etc. This is how it was in the early Church and throughout the Church’s life.
The SSPX knows all about this and would be the first to uphold the absolute authority of its own bishops. They affrm the authority of the Pope as well. And the SSPX knows that full communion and ecclesial unity can only be based not only in terms of the Faith, but also in terms of the fulfillment of canonical law and ecclesial obedience.
That obedience can never be founded on the basis of our own interpretation of whether the Bishop is right to say this or that. That is not what Catholics are called to do.
In fact, to read SSPX explanations is proof enough that the spirit of true schism dominates this group, despite its protestations to the contrary. The proof is in the pudding - the SSPX wants to pass judgement on a bishop’s right expect that what they do is grounded upon that bishop’s apostolic authority.
That isn’t Catholic - it’s simply schismatic in the true sense of the word.
To oppose legitimate episcopal authority (regardless of how many seminarians or postulants to the religious life one has) is to put oneself out of the Catholic Church.
That is how all the Popes and Saints that the SSPX constantly refers to would see it as well.
It is time for the SSPX to become Catholic in the way the Catholic Church, the Church that Christ has promised He will always be with, wishes it to be - and not accordiing to its own self-will.
I don’t know what more the Pope can do to invite them back into full communion with the Catholic Church. It is time for the SSPX to stop acting like a spoiled ecclesial brat and take the initiative to reconcile with Rome once and for all.
The SSPX and the Catholic Church are at a crossroads. All Catholics should shun their chapels to let the SSPX know that the proverbial ball is in its court now and unless they show some goodwill on their end, they can go and form their own “church.”
And if the SSPX really does believe that Vatican II was heretical - then they should clarify what they truly do believe about it and also about when they feel that Christ and the Holy Spirit have left the Catholic Church.
Alex
T
TrueLight
Guest
Hi Alex,
I believe one can believe there are bad periods in the history of the Church and still not believe the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church.
Until the Holy See declares them to be in schism and not Catholics, I don’t see any need to do that. There are some very holy folks serving God the way they best know how.
I believe they make it quite clear exactly what they believe. If there is one thing they are, it is blunt.
This is interesting. I just read a book on the History of the Catholic Church and I was so disgusted/disheartened with all the chaos and nonsense that went on and still the Holy Spirit did not abandon the Church. But there were some rough periods.
I believe one can believe there are bad periods in the history of the Church and still not believe the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Uh… the bishops were excommunicated because they ordained bishops, which Canon Law specifically stated would need approval from the Pope. Failure to do so would be excommunication. Pope John Paul II did not overstep his authority.
As for the Archbishop of Davao, he is correct in what he is doing. If the SSPX would want to call themselves Catholics and operate as a Catholic Chapel, then they would need to submit to the Local Ordinary.
J
jmj1984
Guest
There are several problems with this post:
1)You appear to be judging the SSPX on the actions of one person, that’s neither charitable nor prudent
2)You essentially claim the SSPX are in Schism or Schismatic, something that Rome has made clear umpteen times is not true
3)You also appear to be ignorant of both what the SSPX actually believes, in which case you shouldn’t pass judgement on them being unclear etc…, and Canon law
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Just an RC problem? What about their support of the SSJK?
Amen! In the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, he wrote on Chapter 9:
It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil.
newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
J
jwinch2
Guest
I know next to nothing about Franciscan spirituality and the rule that Saint Francis received. However, the one thing I have heard from Brother over and over again is the role of obedience. Knowing that, I was surprised to see someone with “SFO” after their name openly defending disobedience and supporting a group that is unabashedly disobeying orders from a legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
- Status