Pope Francis: SSPX priests will licitly and validly absolve sins during Jubilee of Mercy [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually I thought the stubbornness was palpable. They still insist they are correct that they have supplied jurisdiction. Someone should have told Pope Francis. 😃
 
I cant find the link, somebody help me…

But there was a letter sent from the Vatican, Ecclesia Dei, to a woman inquiring about SSPX masses. This was 1983 or 1987, I cant remember, and they said that the SSPX masses fulfilled Sunday obligation.

Somebody want to help me find the letter?
Anywho, I am super excited. I dont want to “read to far” into it…but I cant wait for further discussion.

I share the SSPX opinion on many things, such as the Novus Ordo and Vatican 2, so I would love to attend their chapels, but they are canonically irregular, and I must not deny that. I will stay with the Church always. I will be with the Pope always.
Anyways, this opens up confession. I would ASSUME it opens up Mass, because what is the point of confession without Mass? But I will await a further clarification. If Masses remain illicit, I will obey…

Ive been having an AWFUL week, been very depressed, but this TOTALLY cheered me up. Im so excited for what comes now. 🙂
 
Lormar said:
It also blows apart the position held by some that the SSPX always had the authority to forgive sins. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The SSPX have never claimed that they had ordinary jurisdiction, but that they had supplied jurisdiction (i.e. a Catholic asking a validly ordained priest, which they are, supplies the jurisdiction) and therefore they hold that their Confessions are valid on this basis. But they have never claim that they licitly administer the sacraments, but during the Jubilee Year the SSPX will indeed be licitly hearing Confessions.

So no, this move by the Pope does not change the argument as to whether the SSPX had supplied jurisdiction and could administer valid (but illicit) Confessions.
 
Brendan_64 said:
Not necessarily. The SSPX have never claimed that they had ordinary jurisdiction, but that they had supplied jurisdiction (i.e. a Catholic asking a validly ordained priest, which they are, supplies the jurisdiction) and therefore they hold that their Confessions are valid on this basis. But they have never claim that they licitly administer the sacraments, but during the Jubilee Year the SSPX will indeed be licitly hearing Confessions.

So no, this move by the Pope does not change the argument as to whether the SSPX had supplied jurisdiction and could administer valid (but illicit) Confessions.
Click to expand...
Brendan, I spent ten years with them, so I know all the answers they give. Thank you for the explanation anyway. 🙂
 
I would note that the argument as to their status to celebrate Mass is unchanged. It is a valid Mass and always has been. It is illicit to attend still as it was before. The Holy Father specified they have licit Confession, in conjunction with the Jubilee of Mercy. The idea is mercy, as found in forgiveness of sin. This is the point of every other change he is permitting this year. We can no more add to what the Holy Father said by assuming he just forget to put in the part about them saying Mass than we can disagree with the part he put in bringing these priest in, for this Jubilee, with a valid and licit ministry within the Catholic Church. They will be legitimate confessors who are illicitly saying Mass, if they say Mass.
 
Brendan_64 said:
The SSPX have never claimed that they had ordinary jurisdiction, but that they had supplied jurisdiction (i.e. a Catholic asking a validly ordained priest, which they are, supplies the jurisdiction) and therefore they hold that their Confessions are valid on this basis.
Click to expand...
I believe that would pertain to a priest in an area that does not have an established parish where the sacraments may be celebrated. It is a stretch to claim that legitimizes an act that would normally not be permitted.
 
pnewton said:
I would note that the argument as to their status to celebrate Mass is unchanged. It is a valid Mass and always has been. It is illicit to attend still as it was before.
Click to expand...
It is illicit for the priests to celebrate Mass, but I challenge you to provide any citation of the Church stating it is illicit for the faithful to attend a Mass there. It would pretty much fly in the face of their determination that attendance does fulfill the Sunday obligation.
 
Megan7 said:
Thanks:thumbsup:

It sounds odd to me, that you would go to the SSPX Chapel, confess your sins, get absolved, but RUN out in a hurry before Mass starts :confused:
Click to expand...
Precisely. In many places other than the SSPX chapels, confessions are heard during Mass. I’m sure the Holy Father was well aware of this when he issued the document.
 
pnewton said:
I would note that the argument as to their status to celebrate Mass is unchanged. It is a valid Mass and always has been. It is illicit to attend still as it was before. The Holy Father specified they have licit Confession, in conjunction with the Jubilee of Mercy. The idea is mercy, as found in forgiveness of sin. This is the point of every other change he is permitting this year. We can no more add to what the Holy Father said by assuming he just forget to put in the part about them saying Mass than we can disagree with the part he put in bringing these priest in, for this Jubilee, with a valid and licit ministry within the Catholic Church. They will be legitimate confessors who are illicitly saying Mass, if they say Mass.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but isn’t this the same Pope who has made comments against too much legalism?
 
Tim_D said:
I believe that would pertain to a priest in an area that does not have an established parish where the sacraments may be celebrated. It is a stretch to claim that legitimizes an act that would normally not be permitted.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but nevertheless Pope Francis’s statement does not change the argument on either side about whether or not SSPX priests could validly hear Confession before, or after the Jubilee Year.

However we have a situation now whereby some traditionally-minded Catholics who do not currently go to SSPX priests because of the illicit (and possibly invalid) nature of their Confessions may well decide to go to the SSPX for Confession during the Jubilee year, and they may well like it. What will they then do at the end of the Year of Mercy when suddenly they are told that Confession with the SSPX is no longer licit any more (and possibly not regarded as valid)? Some of these people may end up continuing to go to Confession with the SSPX. If this is viewed by the Church as invalid then is this not pastorally unwise, perhaps even a cause for creating scandal? However, if the faculties to hear Confession after the end of the Year of Mercy were then granted this issue would not arise.
 
Where was the an official statement that made their faculties invalid?
 
question.
This clearly does not take effect until December. And this clearly is an act the pope took in concern for the Catholics who attend. But yet there was no directive that either the attendees of the sspx seek a diocesan priest until December nor that they reconfess their sins from last week…
So, do we think this pope of mercy does not recognize valid the absolution the attendees receive between now and then?
 
Brendan_64 said:
What will they then do at the end of the Year of Mercy when suddenly they are told that
Click to expand...
Let’s hope the end of the Year of Mercy will not be the end of all mercy. (I heard something to this effect this morning as they were discussing this on radio.)
 
Chaldean_Rite said:
Where was the an official statement that made their faculties invalid?
Click to expand...
If there were one, it probably would have been issued back in 1975 when the archbishop and all he would ordain were suspended until further notice.

So my question would be is this at least a partial lifting of those suspensions. Obviously their ministry in the Church, though temporary perhaps, has now been recognized.
 
Lormar said:
They never had faculties to give a valid absolution so there was nothing to invalidate.
Click to expand...
So they were priests who did nothing? What is the point of a priest who can’t administer the Sacraments? I’m sure many of these men have been SSPX priests all their lives.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
So, do we think this pope of mercy does not recognize valid the absolution the attendees receive between now and then?
Click to expand...
That’s the crux of the problem, isn’t it?

Obviously, if they lack faculties from this day until December 8th, their absolutions are invalid, just as they have been for the past 30 or so years.
 
ProVobis said:
So my question would be is this at least a partial lifting of those suspensions. Obviously their ministry in the Church, though temporary perhaps, has now been recognized.
Click to expand...
Pope Francis did not address the suspensions; as far as that goes, I would imagine the status quo is maintained. He has granted faculties for confessions for the Year of Mercy, no more, no less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top