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

[pnewton]

The point is that by giving priests power to fulfill this sacrament, He has given them power to rule in other sacraments.
.

The Holy Father did not say this. That alone is sufficient. Mass remains illicit, at least at this time. The statement is not one of reconciliation of the SSPX. It is on mercy as administered by the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The Holy Father expanded jurisdiction under his own authority for this Jubilee. He did not abrogate any canon law or previous statement, with the one exception being that the SSPX had been said to exercise no ministry within the Catholic Church. They now have this one.

Practically speaking, we do not know what the future holds. Any speculation as to the future may reveal more the mind of the one speculating than the mind of the Holy Father. He did add that he hoped the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the SSPX. This latter point may prove more significant in the long run.

Yes, this is huge news for those sympathetic to the SSPX, but we cannot expand on the Holy Father’s outreach to them by adding assumptions and wishes to it.

 

[ProVobis]

The Holy Father did not say this. That alone is sufficient. Mass remains illicit, at least at this time.

Since everything is so integrated within the life of a churchgoer, I will be surprised if some clarification isn’t made on this. Are we saying inside the same chapel, receiving one sacrament is okay, even encouraged, while another one, commonly tied with the first, is illegal, and thus needs to be confessed? It seems we’re introducing too much legalism or scrupulosity here.

 

[pnewton]

Since everything is so integrated within the life of a churchgoer, I will be surprised if some clarification isn’t made on this.

I was just stating what was done, and what was not done. I understand it and find not need to assume more than was said. The goal was not the regularization of the Church life for those attending SSPX chapels, but an expansion of Reconciliation. That is why it is included in the statement about Reconciliation, not about the SSPX.

 

[Denise1957]

It’s important to differentiate between:

1. The “SSPX” - an **organization **whose members are clergy and/or religious; and:
2. The “SSPX” - individuals who personally choose affiliate more or less, in terms of its services and overall guidance

Francis is trying to extend sacramental and hopefully pastoral care to all individual laity, who sometimes are already in complicated personal, spiritual/moral circumstances. This includes persons in uncertain “family-type” situations; or – persons in #2 above – or also others. He is neither judging nor condoning the situations themselves that people find themselves caught up in, he’s just trying to reach individuals, where they are at this moment. The unmarried couple currently in a doubtful status in the Church have a right to the Church’s concern. And love. Others too. That doesn’t mean all situations are equally wholesome in the long run, but Francis is focusing on forgiveness, and strengths, for today. He wants them all to go to confession, and he is flexible on where they get it.

He could have addressed a message to #1, above. He didn’t. It would be misleading to take an initiative for #2, and jump to a conclusion about the Church’s position on #1.

He is indeed focusing on forgiveness, as you’ve mentioned. However…he’s focusing on forgiveness in a group which is considered to not be in full communion. You seem to be trying to understate or dismiss this important factor. The SSPX is considered by many to be a schismatic group, though Pope Francis has never referred to them as such.

In fact, Pope Francis, before he was elected, worked to have the SSPX in Argentina recognized as a registered legal Catholic organization in Argentina. Why would he work toward this end, but then turn around and say something like…“Sorry, but Catholics aren’t allowed to attend the SSPX Masses in Argentina, even though I’ve worked to have them recognized as a Catholic organization so that they do their work here.”
I mean, would this even make sense? Why would you think so?

 

[thinkandmull]

But doesn’t this really pose a problem for the sspx? They have claimed all along that they have faculties to hear confessions (and marriages, too). If they accept this limited faculty, it implies that they haven’t had proper authority all along. What happens when the jubilee year is over and their faculties expire? Will they still hear confessions? If they do, won’t that be a thumping of their nose in the face of the local bishops?

Also, Pope Benedict has said that the sspx do not have a legitimate ministry in the Church. Doesn’t this give them a de facto legitimate ministry? And again, what happens at the end of the year when this de facto ministry is no more?

Hmmm, it seems like a canonical argument here: the priest must recognize where the authority is being given by the superior. Since they don’t recognize this gesture of the Pope, but instead think they have always had the authority for confession from their bishop, will their Jubilee of Mercy confessions be invalid? especially considering that they don’t recognize a Jubilee of Mercy.

Pope Francis is not a canon lawyer, so maybe this amazing gesture of his was done very apostolically, but *maybe *technically insufficient.

However, I was told by a sedevacantist that as Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict said that the SSPX always had valid marriages and confessions

 

[Denise1957]

I believe she did disclose that the source may not be suitable for posting. I don’t think it dishonest at all. In fact I think she took great care to be respectful about the forum vs something like the remnant. Which I think you and I will agree is not exactly a reliable source for a serious Catholic.

Thank you.

 

[commenter]

He is indeed focusing on forgiveness, as you’ve mentioned. However…he’s focusing on forgiveness in a group

Francis is focusing on individual laypeople who, of course, are not members of SSPX. Those individuals and families do, of course, receive the Church’s concern, wherever they are.
The status of the organization is a separate issue.

You seem to be trying to understate or dismiss this important factor. The SSPX is considered by many to be a schismatic group, though Pope Francis has never referred to them as such.

I wish people would separate the needs of families, from the technical, legal, supposed “rights” of the organization.
Pope Francis is reaching out to unmarried parents. He wants the Church to minister to them where they are now. But he’s not saying it’s irrelevant whether they get married in the Church, out of the Church, or stay unmarried. These options are **not **equally good, but the Church should actively love them whatever their choices.

Likewise, he wishes to reach out, in a pastoral way, to individuals and families loyal to the SSPX. They all have different stories, different situations, to which the Church should be sensitive. That doesn’t mean he thinks being in an isolated chapel shut off from their diocese is the best choice,or equally good for a family - it’s not - it means he is reaching out to families, where they are now.

If he, or his local bishops and pastors, can touch the hearts of those chapel families, and set up local ministries sensitive to their feelings, many will come home, join parishes. Some need a personal invitation. In my diocese we have 2 parishes with TLM Masses, but we have never done personal invitations. But Francis would still love Catholics who choose to remain at SSPX chapels, or worship at other places, or at no place. But not all choices for parents are equally good for families. That’s where Francis is coming from, I think.

The technical issues about the organization are far less important than the impact on families - for over 40 years.

 

[ProVobis]

The goal was not the regularization of the Church life for those attending SSPX chapels, but an expansion of Reconciliation. That is why it is included in the statement about Reconciliation, not about the SSPX.

Fair enough. It seems consistent with the Pope’s emphasis on more confessions. Don’t forget he’s been hard on his priests for “failing” in their mission since he became Pope. His concern does seem to be more geared to the laity than to the welfare of the priests. Of course the laity should take advantage of the opportunity to have their sins absolved through valid confessions, wherever they can find them. This should be a plus for everyone. Priests purposely NOT hearing confessions would be the negative side.

 

[Denise1957]

Francis is focusing on individual laypeople who, of course, are not members of SSPX. Those individuals and families do, of course, receive the Church’s concern, wherever they are.
The status of the organization is a separate issue.​

The technical issues about the organization are far less important than the impact on families - for over 40 years.

He is focusing on individuals; however, he mentioned the SSPX specifically. Adherents of the SSPX are of course not members of the SSPX. The Pope didn’t anything about Catholics going to confession “wherever they are.”

You seem to be generalizing the Pope’s intentions, but at the same time, you show concern about families who attend SSPX Masses exclusively, and as such, as you’ve mentioned a few times previously, they don’t have the benefit of being attached to a diocese.

In other words, you seem to be saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that it seems to be a big deal that families attend the SSPX exclusively, but also that it also doesn’t really matter where they are attending according to the Pope. Seems like a a bit of a contradiction to me, but maybe I’m not understanding you correctly.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Pope Francis’ Year of Mercy Indulgence Raises Canonical Questions

ncregister.com/daily-news/some-canonical-question-regarding-pope-francis-year-of-mercy-indulgence/

,

 

[giuseppeTO]

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.

Newt! It’s been a while … how are you. Here is an interesting consideration:

The Mass an SSPX priest offers is illicit based on the fact that he has not been granted faculties by the ordinary of the diocese. When an SSPX priest celebrates Mass at St. Peter’s in Rome, which is almost a daily occurrence, he makes an appointment ahead of time and at the appointed time of his Mass, he shows his celebret (from the Superior General of the SSPX) in the Sacristy and then is escorted to the altar assigned. It is typically either the altar containing the body of St. Pius X or the Clementine Chapel (relics of St. Peter).

So, even though he has not been provided Faculties from the Bishop (of Rome), he is none the less suffered to offer Mass along with whatever faithful are with him.

Is that Mass illicit and if so, why do you think illicit Masses are tolerated in one of the Holiest shines of Christendom? If it is illicit, why are no church authorities complicit in the (sin) of the priest and faithful participating in an illicit Mass. Is this a case of providing faculties by ‘toleration’ only?

 

[dreamer29]

it is no secret that many in the sspx and the people who support them see themselves as the “true” faithful of the catholic church. Even a cursory reading of the things on their website easily illustrates this. They denounce mass according to the missal of pope paul vi and decry modern priestly formation as being against “tradition.” they have been openly hostile to every pope since john xxiii, labeling them “modernist.” they act in disobedience to the pope and canon law. There are many who do not want to be reunited with rome. Part of the fear for those who support the sspx is that if an agreement were to be signed with the pope, then many priests and laity would go their own way.

bingo!

 

[pnewton]

Newt! It’s been a while … how are you. Here is an interesting consideration:

Yes, it has, hasn’t it. As to your questions, I have never been to Rome and know nothing of the arrangement there between and clergy at the Vatican and the SSPX. I am surely no canon lawyer. My approach to such thing is to always take them at face value and leave the “why” to my betters. Like this current letter, we can guess at some of the Holy Father’s motives, and he gives a little in the one statement he makes about the future. But as in all things, we shall see. He spoke of hope for the future, and hope is a good thing for us all to have. We can all take this as motivation to pray for all these priests and those who they minister to, that full reconciliation will take place for all those that want it.

 

[commenter]

He is focusing on individuals; however, he mentioned the SSPX specifically. Adherents of the SSPX are of course not members of the SSPX. The Pope didn’t anything about Catholics going to confession “wherever they are.”

You seem to be generalizing the Pope’s intentions, but at the same time, you show concern about families who attend SSPX Masses exclusively, and as such, as you’ve mentioned a few times previously, they don’t have the benefit of being attached to a diocese.

In other words, you seem to be saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that it seems to be a big deal that families attend the SSPX exclusively, but also that it also doesn’t really matter where they are attending according to the Pope. Seems like a a bit of a contradiction to me, but maybe I’m not understanding you correctly.

I am not sure I have a good enough grasp of the topic, including the pre existing situation as well as Pope Francis’ new directive, to respond to your post. Take what seems the most intelligent interpretation of my prior post, and assume that’s what I meant. I need to think this over more…

 

[ProVobis]

I need to think this over more…

I’m sure there is a worldful of wheels turning on this one.

 

[otjm]

This is great news indeed!

This is a very generous move on the part of Pope Francis. Rather than negotiate and trade concessions, Pope Francis just grants them faculties during the Jubilee Year without any apparent requirement for something in return. He gives without expecting to receive. Well done Pope Francis!

And it does blow apart the position held by some that the SSPX are in schism. The Pope clearly (and rightly) sees the SSPX as part of the Roman Catholic Church (as indeed the SSPX do). The Pope would clearly not grant faculties to priests who were outside of the Church, he couldn’t do so even if he wanted to. It wouldn’t make sense.

Being in schism, whether officially or practically, is still being part of the Catholic Church. You seem to be confusing it with excommunication.

Nothing which the Pope has done has granted them any other faculties, either to the priests or to the bishops. The status remains the same as Cardinal Mueller stated.

It is a gracious act, which in turn confirms Rome’s position that (with this exception) they are in irregular status and do not have faculties.

As to reconciliation, the offer made by Pope Benedict stands; it is still open to them. The ball has been in their court, and they have refused to play. Nothing hinders them from reconciliation other than their own choice.

 

[otjm]

I’m not sure that supplied (emergency) jurisdiction originates with the Vatican. It might. The SSPX believe that they have supplied jurisdiction, not ordinary jurisdiction.

My understanding of it is that it is the faithful themselves who provide the jurisdiction by asking a validly ordained priest to hear their confession. Even if that priest is suspended, he is allowed, by way of his ordination, to hear confessions and absolve sins, if the faithful ask for it, even if he does not have (ordinary) jurisdiction from the bishop.

There is an article on the SSPX DICI website regarding this subject, written by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, if anyone cares to take a look at it (a Google search can bring it up), in order to see it from the SSPX POV. I won’t provide a link to it, since it goes against forum rules, I think.

Another way to look at it is this:

Ordinary jurisdiction comes from the top down, by way of the Catholic hierarchy.
Supplied (emergency) jurisdiction comes from the bottom up, by way of the Catholic faithful themselves.

I believe it was John Paul 2 who thoroughly disabused that notion. He declared that there was no such emergency, and they had no authority or right to claim it.

That, however, has not slowed them down from dragging that out as their justification.

 

[otjm]

We are close to full reconciliation.

That depends on what kind of yardstick you use to measure. One might call Pluto close if one referred to Sirius as the base measure.

 

[otjm]

I am too, especially with those who claim the society is in schism, among other things. We’ll see how they change their tune when we all see long confession lines at our local SSPX chapels come the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

And that is going to change Cardinal Mueller’s statement?

 

[otjm]

Since everything is so integrated within the life of a churchgoer, I will be surprised if some clarification isn’t made on this. Are we saying inside the same chapel, receiving one sacrament is okay, even encouraged, while another one, commonly tied with the first, is illegal, and thus needs to be confessed? It seems we’re introducing too much legalism or scrupulosity here.

The illicitness of the Mass said is not on the person attending the Mass; it is on the priest saying it.

People have not been forbidden to attend SSPX chapels; they have been advised that they should not go and that it could provide a perilous risk to their salvation. The risk is not the Mass itself; it is the matters that come out in homilies, written materials, conversations with other individuals who take the positions against the Church which the Society does, and any other influences which may attend to one seeking out Mass there.