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

[Brendan_64]

Actually, I think it does.

By stating that they may hear confessions in the future implies that they couldn’t hear them before and by putting a time limit on it - the Year of Mercy - implies that it is for a specific time only.

No it doesn’t. Now their Confessions will be licit and have the approval of the Vatican, which they were not before. It has never been in question, even by the SSPX, that their Confessions were not valid and were disapproved of by the Vatican.

This generous move by Pope Francis does not touch on whether or not the SSPX had supplied jurisdiction all along. Indeed I think it would be quite unwise if he was to link the issue to a gesture of mercy. It would have the effect of giving the impression of linking caveats to mercy.

I think Pope Francis, in simply extending this gesture of mercy to our fellow Catholics who attend SSPX chapels and to the SSPX priests without any stipulations, has acting with great charity.

In fact the whole of his short letter is great. The most exciting document of his papacy so far, in my opinion.

 

[Lormar]

I have a bad habit, one of many actually, of reacting too fast. Especially to news of this nature.

After “sleeping on it” and giving it all a chance to sink in, it seems to me that this is, as others have already said on this thread, simply giving Catholics an opportunity to avail themselves of an SSPX for confession, should they have the need and no other priest may be available.

I don’t think there is anything more to this than that.

I wish we had a priest registered on the forum who could help us out in matters like this and put it in its proper perspective. Like Brother Jay used to do.

 

[Denise1957]

In fact the whole of his short letter is great. The most exciting document of his papacy so far, in my opinion.

I would tend to agree. And the fact that Pope Francis referred to those SSPX attenders as the “faithful” should put a damper on accusations of the SSPX as being schismatic or non-Catholic.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I have a bad habit, one of many actually, of reacting too fast. Especially to news of this nature.

After “sleeping on it” and giving it all a chance to sink in, it seems to me that this is, as others have already said on this thread, simply giving Catholics an opportunity to avail themselves of an SSPX for confession, should they have the need and no other priest may be available.

I don’t think there is anything more to this than that.

I wish we had a priest registered on the forum who could help us out in matters like this and put it in its proper perspective. Like Brother Jay used to do.

Pope Francis did not make the distinction the “no other priest be available”

 

[Lormar]

Pope Francis did not make the distinction the “no other priest be available”

Neither did I. You are reading into my post what I did not intend to say. I only meant that maybe some Catholics would not avail themselves to an SSPX priest if another one was available to them.

In any event, I will leave you all here to argue about it.

 

[ProVobis]

After “sleeping on it” and giving it all a chance to sink in, it seems to me that this is, as others have already said on this thread, simply giving Catholics an opportunity to avail themselves of an SSPX for confession…

Simply?

I would say confession is perhaps the most saving sacrament other than Baptism. This is indeed a big deal, as some have stated or implied.

BTW, I’m not undermining the Last RItes, but in the interest of not stirring up a debate on this, I will not say more on this sacrament on this thread.

 

[Walking_Home]

I would tend to agree. And the fact that Pope Francis referred to those SSPX attenders as the “faithful” should put a damper on accusations of the SSPX as being schismatic or non-Catholic.

---

Yet from the SSPX end – and worse the “resistance” – Vat II / the Pope(s)/ the OF / the OF attendees/ etc. – “Modernists/protestant/not true Catholics/ etc. etc.” You should be well aware of that “Denise1957”

 

[Denise1957]

Christopher Ferrara wrote an article on this subject, and I’d like to provide a few quotes from it, if that’s okay. I won’t post a link, since some of the content might be offensive to some folks here. He could very well be wrong about his conclusions regarding this issue, but I think it makes some sense, too. From Christopher Ferrara:

“…Now, to be serious. Francis has just regularized the Society of St. Pius X by unilateral decree. That’s right: regularized. Why? Because he has granted its clergy universal power to administer the Sacrament of Confession with no grant of faculties from any local ordinary. Does anyone seriously think that the day before the Year of Mercy ends, Francis or any Vatican official will direct the SSPX clergy to cease absolving sins at 12:01 am on the next day? That isn’t going to happen. It would be the very sort of Pharisaical legalism that Francis is constantly condemning. No, something else is going to happen: at the very least, the arrangements for confession will be permanent.”

“Moreover, the decree implicitly regularizes attendance at SSPX Masses, for it can hardly be the case that it would be licit for the faithful to go to confession at an SSPX chapel but illicit to stay for Mass, or that one can do both licitly, but only for one year. Are we supposed to believe that the same priests who, according to this decree, can validly and licitly absolve sins during the Year of Mercy but not licitly celebrate Mass at the same time and in the same place? That kind of hairsplitting would make even the Pharisees laugh.”​

So what Mr. Ferrara seems to be saying is that Francis is not likely to rescind the granting of faculties to the SSPX after the Year of Mercy, because it would go against logic, and also against how Pope Francis normally does things.
Well, we’ll have to wait and see, I guess.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Christopher Ferrara wrote an article on this subject, and I’d like to provide a few quotes from it, if that’s okay. I won’t post a link, since some of the content might be offensive to some folks here. He could very well be wrong about his conclusions regarding this issue, but I think it makes some sense, too. From Christopher Ferrara:

“…Now, to be serious. Francis has just regularized the Society of St. Pius X by unilateral decree. That’s right: regularized. Why? Because he has granted its clergy universal power to administer the Sacrament of Confession with no grant of faculties from any local ordinary. Does anyone seriously think that the day before the Year of Mercy ends, Francis or any Vatican official will direct the SSPX clergy to cease absolving sins at 12:01 am on the next day? That isn’t going to happen. It would be the very sort of Pharisaical legalism that Francis is constantly condemning. No, something else is going to happen: at the very least, the arrangements for confession will be permanent.”

“Moreover, the decree implicitly regularizes attendance at SSPX Masses, for it can hardly be the case that it would be licit for the faithful to go to confession at an SSPX chapel but illicit to stay for Mass, or that one can do both licitly, but only for one year. Are we supposed to believe that the same priests who, according to this decree, can validly and licitly absolve sins during the Year of Mercy but not licitly celebrate Mass at the same time and in the same place? That kind of hairsplitting would make even the Pharisees laugh.”​

So what Mr. Ferrara seems to be saying is that Francis is not likely to rescind the granting of faculties to the SSPX after the Year of Mercy, because it would go against logic, and also against how Pope Francis normally does things.
Well, we’ll have to wait and see, I guess.

I will say that is my view as well. But to play devils advocate. Pope Francis does not have to rescind anything because it already has an expiration on it…

But yes, my point is that by giving them faculties here, he has given validity to other sacraments. He may not even need to state any more about attendance. But what he may want to do is address the marriages. And he very well may.

Think about it. It presents an issue. An invalidly married couple goes to confession to an SSPX priest. They were married in the SSPX and the priest now can deal directly with marital issues within confession…

Same with attendance and monetary support.

 

[Denise1957]

I will say that is my view as well. But to play devils advocate. Pope Francis does not have to rescind anything because it already has an expiration on it…

But yes, my point is that by giving them faculties here, he has given validity to other sacraments. He may not even need to state any more about attendance. But what he may want to do is address the marriages. And he very well may.

Think about it. It presents an issue. An invalidly married couple goes to confession to an SSPX priest. They were married in the SSPX and the priest now can deal directly with marital issues within confession…

Same with attendance and monetary support.

You’re right, there is an expiration date, but what Mr. Ferrara seems to be saying too is that at the very least they will be granted permanent faculties, which I should have mentioned in my last post. It’s just speculation, but it could easily happen.

The SSPX marriage issue is another subject. But Pope Francis is not likely to get too caught up in little details over that either, IMO. He could just say one day that SSPX marriages are valid, and that’s that. Or maybe not. I dunno.

 

[TimothyH]

From both a practical and an ecclesial perspective, the whole thing really has very little to do with the vast majority of Catholics.

Mainstream Catholics in the parishes are not going to flock to the local SSPX chapel for confession. We are quite happy with our confessors and aren’t going to drive half way across the city just to find an SSPX priest.

Some traditionalists without an FSSP parish nearby will go and those who already go to SSPX chapels will continue to go and perhaps feel better about it but most Catholics have never even heard of the SSPX in the first place.

-Tim-

 

[Tim_D]

Christopher Ferrara wrote an article on this subject, and I’d like to provide a few quotes from it, if that’s okay. I won’t post a link, since some of the content might be offensive to some folks here. He could very well be wrong about his conclusions regarding this issue, but I think it makes some sense, too. From Christopher Ferrara:

It is very dishonest of you to not mention that what you cite comes from The Remnant Newspaper. I’ll bet that you had a very good reason not to mention it or link to it, huh?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

From both a practical and an ecclesial perspective, the whole thing really has very little to do with the vast majority of Catholics.

Mainstream Catholics in the parishes are not going to flock to the local SSPX chapel for confession. We are quite happy with our confessors and aren’t going to drive half way across the city just to find an SSPX priest.

Some traditionalists without an FSSP parish nearby will go and those who already go to SSPX chapels will continue to go and perhaps feel better about it but most Catholics have never even heard of the SSPX in the first place.

-Tim-

This is new territory for all of us. There may not be a flocking, but there maybe a trickle. I for one will probably trek on over to the SSPX to confess. It is so hard to find a good confessor where I am. So, it may be a noticeable difference. But honestly, in the spirit of Mercy it does affect the vast majority of Catholics. That a single sinner’s sins are wiped away affects us all. Or should anyway. And this also underscores the true power of binding and loosing the Church has. I wonder… How many just following this thread have thought about the sacrament of confession.

Aside.

I have no idea where it is but I was sure there was a forum rule about not encouraging people to attend SSPX because they have no licit ministry in the Church. I would assume that would need to be amended now as the Holy Father has told people to seek out priests from the SSPX to at least get this sacrament. So hopefully I am on acceptable ground when I say that I will probably confess several times in the year of Mercy at the SSPX chapel. If others do the same it may make for interesting conversation about confessions within the SSPX Vs diocesan.

If this is off base hopefully a mod will remove it and clarify this issue.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It is very dishonest of you to not mention that what you cite comes from The Remnant Newspaper. I’ll bet that you had a very good reason not to mention it or link to it, huh?

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.

 

[ProVobis]

From both a practical and an ecclesial perspective, the whole thing really has very little to do with the vast majority of Catholics.

Mainstream Catholics in the parishes are not going to flock to the local SSPX chapel for confession. We are quite happy with our confessors and aren’t going to drive half way across the city just to find an SSPX priest.

Some traditionalists without an FSSP parish nearby will go and those who already go to SSPX chapels will continue to go and perhaps feel better about it but most Catholics have never even heard of the SSPX in the first place.

-Tim-

From a practical standpoint, there probably is some limitation because there’s only so much time for confession before Mass. And if there is only one priest in the parish, probably even less so. Confession by appointment doesn’t work too well when one has to drive an hour to get there.

As for vast majority of Catholics, that’s another matter, because those receiving communion vastly outnumber those who line up for confession, even if there are more than enough priests… So this is no big deal to them.

 

[Brendan]

I would tend to agree. And the fact that Pope Francis referred to those SSPX attenders as the “faithful” should put a damper on accusations of the SSPX as being schismatic or non-Catholic.

Sort of, that is the correct Canonical term for any lay Baptized person. The term even includes Protestants.

So I would not read too much into it

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It would be reaching too far to say that the Pope has given the SSPX full status. In fact his statement excludes that possibility exclusively for the current time period. With hope for the future. This is not a little thing because the negotiations between the two have been quite active given that the SSPX was supposed to be written off of this Pontificate. This will affect in the very near future other sacraments. It has to because of the very nature of the confessional. And it’s relation to other Sacraments. Marriage, Baptism, Communion, and even Ordination are linked to the sacrament itself. That one could confess to an SSPX priest valid and then by law be ruled to either receive or be denied a sacrament will be something that will have to be clarified. I think rather quickly you will see Bishops weigh in on this. Some may be upset, some may be the “Brother Bishops” that Francis talks about. As well as the CDF and possible clarification from the Pope himself.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Sort of, that is the correct Canonical term for any lay Baptized person. The term even includes Protestants.

So I would not read too much into it

I think between the Argentina declaration of the SSPX priests as Catholic in the eyes of the Church, the recent ruling of the Vatican giving Fellay the ability to discipline one of his own priests. (Recognizing him as the (Superior of a Society) WITHIN the Church. And then the seemingly warm and fond language describing not only the laity who attend and even the members of the society themselves (priests) that "fatihful in this case was used just as it sounds (full of faith) The Catholic faith. No protestants attend or could receive the sacrament of confession at an SSPX chapel.

 

[ProVobis]

That one could confess to an SSPX priest valid and then by law be ruled to either receive or be denied a sacrament will be something that will have to be clarified. I think rather quickly you will see Bishops weigh in on this. Some may be upset, some may be the “Brother Bishops” that Francis talks about. As well as the CDF and possible clarification from the Pope himself.

I don’t know if further clarifications will help. Last night I was on facebook and the cries that the SSPX are in schism scream louder than ever.

How is any reconciliation possible under these circumstances?

 

[commenter]

I would tend to agree. And the fact that Pope Francis referred to those SSPX attenders as the “faithful” should put a damper on accusations of the SSPX as being schismatic or non-Catholic.

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.