Pushed to the SSPX

[surritter]

I absolutely, without a doubt do (receivethe sacraments from a minister who is commissioned by the successor of the Apostles for my diocese). Anyone who doesn’t isn’t receiving a sacrament at all.

You’re kidding? You go to an SSPX chapel. And you are telling me that the priest there was commissioned by the bishop of your diocese to be there administering the sacraments? (!)

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
When you went to receive on the tongue and were denied, you should simply receive in the hand and go on.

If your conscience is not “properly formed” on something as elemental as the Church’s teaching on the proper way(s) to receive communion, then you should not be receiving communion in the first place lest you, “eat condemnation on yourself”.
Please recognize that I understand that the OP should not have been denied receiving on the tongue, but neither shuold he have made an issue of it at the altar. This would be better handled quietly between himself and the pastor - liturgical commission.

Peace
James

 

[giuseppeTO]

You’re kidding? You go to an SSPX chapel. And you are telling me that the priest there was commissioned by the bishop of your diocese to be there administering the sacraments? (!)

No. Your statement was “commissioned by a successor of the Apostles” and all SSPX priests are commissioned by valid successor of the Apostles. Bishops Fellay, Williamson, de Galaretta, and Tissier are no less successors to the apostles than my diocesan bishop.

 

[surritter]

If your only answer is the Pope’s statement that the SSPX does not exercise a ministry in the Church, I won’t deny that this statement of canonical reality has been reiterated.

So although you acknowledge this, you within the same breath say that it’s OK to receive the sacraments from a priest who “does not exercise a ministry in the Church.”

That is de facto placing yourself outside the Church – not in the area of sacraments, but in the realm of obedience to the lawful vicar of Christ.

 

[surritter]

No. Your statement was “commissioned by a successor of the Apostles” and all SSPX priests are commissioned by valid successor of the Apostles. Bishops Fellay, Williamson, de Galaretta, and Tissier are no less successors to the apostles than my diocesan bishop.

True – they are validly ordained. But they and the priests under them are not “commissioned” to act in the capacity that they currently act. Sorry for the confusion in terminology. But they are disobedient, and my point is that you are also.

 

[giuseppeTO]

True – they are validly ordained. But they and the priests under them are not “commissioned” to act in the capacity that they currently act. Sorry for the confusion in terminology. But they are disobedient, and my point is that you are also.

Well “commissioned” is your term and has no canonical definition so I guess you can define it as you please. I do understand your point. I would still like you to show me the request or law I am personally disobeying. You have certainly seen the acknowledgments from Ecclesia Dei stating that it is lawful to assist at an SSPX Mass. I do give financial support to my diocese and I do frequently seek Confession at a diocesan church (from a priest with ordinary faculties). So tell me what I am disobeying?

 

[giuseppeTO]

So although you acknowledge this, you within the same breath say that it’s OK to receive the sacraments from a priest who “does not exercise a ministry in the Church.”

That is de facto placing yourself outside the Church – not in the area of sacraments, but in the realm of obedience to the lawful vicar of Christ.

Absolutely incorrect. Msgr Perle of Ecclesia Dei has stated that it is lawful to assist at an SSPX Mass. He must know that it would be offered by an SSPX priest without a canonical ministry, so either you are hands down incorrect, or Msgr Perle commits Mortal Sin by stating that something that puts one “de facto” (in the church of Surritter) outside the Church is acceptable.

 

[surritter]

I said that you were correct in that they were validly ordained. But commissioned can also mean sent by lawful authority to a parish to tend a flock there. Your SSPX priest was not sent to that location to tend to a flock. It could be said you are at least giving implicit support to a group that is not in full union with the See of Peter.

Your own quote shows that the “SSPX does not exercise a ministry in the Church.”

So can you admit that you like to assist at a Mass of a priest who does not exercise a ministry in the Church?

We can go from there…

 

[surritter]

Absolutely incorrect. Msgr Perle of Ecclesia Dei has stated that it is lawful to assist at an SSPX Mass. He must know that it would be offered by an SSPX priest without a canonical ministry, so either you are hands down incorrect, or Msgr Perle commits Mortal Sin by stating that something that puts one “de facto” (in the church of Surritter) outside the Church is acceptable.

No need to get snotty. There is no “church of Surritter.”

your posts sometimes drip with un-Christian sayings.

 

[giuseppeTO]

No need to get snotty. There is no “church of Surritter.”

your posts sometimes drip with un-Christian sayings.

Sorry, but you can surely understand my irritation with those that proclaim others to be “de facto” outside of the church based on their own personal canonical jurisprudence.

So, yes I will certainly admit that I do assist at a Mass of a priest who does not exercise a ministry in the Church (I’m not sure that “like” is relevant because the question is much more sublime than that).

So now you have to tell me whether Msgr Perle is wrong or you are wrong concerning someone who assists at an SSPX Mass putting himself outside of the church “de facto” even thought the priest exercises no valid ministry in the church. This is an important question … is it Surriter or Perle?

 

[spn82756]

Dorian, I would find another Parish to go to, but I would also speak to the priest or Eucharistic Minister that did this and ask him why, nicely. If I didn’t get a satisfactory answer, I would then contact your Bishop, and tell him the situation. This sounds totally weird, especially getting more than one Host!

Going to the SSPX is not the answer, as they are still not in communion with the Pope and don’t believe that he is a valid one. There were many misconceptions after Vatican !! but don’t blame the Church for that. That is the fault of many zealous bishops and priests that went “overboard”.

Please correct me if I’m wrong…but I thought that SSPX does recognize the Pope. Their claim is that he doens’t recognize them. Just the same…as you’ve said…stick with the sure thing!

I was away from the Church for many years because of this but recently returned about 5 years ago. Don’t let this happen to you! I know that New York has many parishes, unless you live in the Rochester area where I understand there is a shortage of priests.
God Bless!

 

[bpbasilphx]

Really…and these things don’t happen…how naive

And can you actually see what composed the matter in whatever the Priest is holding from a computer photograph? Are you saying that you can actually TELL it’s a sugar cookie? It looks to me like it’s just a thickish host to me.

As far as the person dressed as a clown receiving Communion, is the PRIEST actually dressed as a clown?

In any case, errors in one direction do not mean there cannot be equally dangerous errors in the opposite direction.

 

[JReducation]

No. Your statement was “commissioned by a successor of the Apostles” and all SSPX priests are commissioned by valid successor of the Apostles. Bishops Fellay, Williamson, de Galaretta, and Tissier are no less successors to the apostles than my diocesan bishop.

I believe the clarification needs to be made between being a successor of the apostles and having the authority of the apostles. It is true that a Catholic and Orthodox bishops has apostolic succession. But it is not true that every bishop has the apostolic authority. Let’s move away from the SSPX for a moment, to take the emotionnal side out of this.

In a diocese where you have the bishop and two auxiliary bishops. The three are successors to the apostles, but only the the bishop of the diocese has the apostolic authority. The auxiliaries do not have apostolikc authority. Therefore, they cannot grant faculties or commission anyone. They can’t even ordain or confirm without the permission of the bishop.

Let’s use another example. You have a religious community such as mine, Franciscan Brothers of Lfie. The Major Superior is not a priest or a bishop. A friar wants to be ordained. The bishop does not have the apostolic authority to ordain him without the permission of the major superior.

This authority of which we speak is called Ordinary authority. Only the bishop of a diocese or the major superior of a religious order of men has ordinary authority as long as it is granted by the Holy See. No one else has it, even if that person is a bishop. Therefore the authority to commission or to grant fauculties really depends on two things: 1) the succession and 2) the communion with the bishop of Rome.

In the case of the Orthodox, they do not need the communion with the Bishop of Rome, because they were never Roman Catholic or Latin Rite Catholics, even before the schism.

In the case of the SSPX, they were ordained Latin Rite Catholic priests. They are not Ordinaries because they are not diocesan bishops nor canonical major superiors, since they have been stripped of all canonical authority by the Holy Father. Therefore, they cannot commission any priest or grant faculties. They have the line of succession, but not the line of authority. Since they are Latin Rite priests they can only get their authority from the Bishop of Rome, not from the succession. Just as an auxiliary only gets his authority from the local Ordinary, who gets his authority from the bishop of Rome.

Therefore, the priests of the SSPX have no valid faculties, because Rome has already declared that their bishops have no canonical authority or place in the Church. All these bishops can do validly, but illegally, is to hand downt the succession, not the faculties.

Since the priests of the SSPX are not religious, they must get their faculties from the Ordinary of the diocese. No one can celebrate sacraments in the diocese of any bishop without his permission, not even religious. The only exception made is for religious on their own property. Because when you step onto the property of a religious order, you’re not legally outside of the diocese. But as long as you’re inside the diocese, you have to go through the local bishop. Only religious orders and Orthodox can live inside the boundaries of a diocese and not be part of it. Every other Latin Rite Catholic is under the jurisdiction of the local bishop, no other bishop.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Diak]

The words of Pope Benedict himself in his letter of March 10, 2009 explains the situation most clearly:

In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

Says everything any Catholic needs to know.

 

[Lamentabili]

Actually, knowing that your attending an illicit mass, simply because you enjoy it, is objectively sinful. The person would be disobeying, simply because he enjoys this mass more than that one, not because of an act of necessity, such as fulfilling your Sunday obligation when there is no other place to go.

How grave is the sin? I really can’t say. You may want to ask a moral theologian that question.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The PCED has stated on more than one occasion that attending SSPX Masses for love of the Latin Mass (exactly what this poster was stating) is NOT a sin. I’ve linked to these statements previously. “Licitness” has to do with whether the priest has permission to say the Mass. That is an entirely separate issue from whether faithful can assist at the Mass without sinning. In the case of Society Masses, the PCED has said it would NOT be a sin if done out of love for the TLM, thus there is no question of disobeying or degree of sin.

Canon Law even allows assisting at non-Catholic Orthodox Masses if genuine spiritual advantage can be had by doing so. It seems Rome recognizes the terrible state of the liturgy on the parish level in many areas and is allowing the faithful to attend these reverent, but “illicit” liturgies for the sake of their souls.

 

[Diak]

Why would any faithful Catholic want to attend and thus materially participate in the actions of those whom the Holy Father has specifically and clearly stated " do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church"?

 

[JReducation]

The words of Pope Benedict himself in his letter of March 10, 2009 explains the situation most clearly:

Says everything any Catholic needs to know.

The most disturbing thing about this statement is not that these poor men do not have faculties, but that the Holy Father is saying

**until the doctrinal questions are clarified, . . . [they] do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. **

By prefacing it that way, even a local bishop or local major superior who may want to grant them faculties cannot do so, because of the “until” clause. Otherwise, that person will be an heap of trouble.

As much as people complain about clowns at mass, the popes have traditionally been harder on defiance than they have on clowns. Don’t get me wrong. They don’t want the clowns at mass either. But when someone defies them on something that they feel strongly about, they come down like a hammer on a nail. This is only my guess. Do not take it to the bank. But I believe that attitude of theirs is a remnant from the days of the Protestant Reformation. But they have the authority to pick and choose their battles. And they rarely pass on something that affects them directly. That’s why Catholics have to be very careful, especially religious and clergy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lamentabili]

What was said was the Ecclesia Suplet does not apply, because there is the necessity is not there. You must have the necessity for supplied jurisdiction. Now, as you clearly and correctly pointed out, there are individual cases in which it does apply. But the allegation of many suspended priests, not just SSPX, is that it applies every time they hear confeession. This is not true. It does not, not if you’re suspended. It only applies when it is necessary for the peninent. The way that canon lawyers interpret this is that there must be grave reason for hearing the confession of the penitent. The fact is that neither the SSPX nor anyone else who is suspended can make a blanket statement and say that the Church supplies everytime.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I’m still unclear as to where JPII declared that no state of necessity exists under Canon Law. Nevertheless, the Society’s claim of supplied jurisdiction for confessions is wholly unrelated to any state of necessity. Necessity is not necessary for supplied jurisdiction. Instead the Society relies, in part, on the Canon Law provisions pertaining to common error of law or fact.

I agree that supplied jurisdiction does not apply carte blanche in every case, but only cases that meet the requirements of Canon Law. However, as Salza explains, those situations are much more common than only danger of death situations. Canon Law’s notion of common error is an old one and the one most applicable to the Society Chapel situation.

I also agree that a suspended priest must have a grave reason to absolve without jursduction or faculties, however the Canons and punishments regarding this affect the priest in question. Those canons do not deal with validity but whether the priest acts morally in absolving.

 

[JReducation]

I’m still unclear as to where JPII declared that no state of necessity exists under Canon Law. Nevertheless, the Society’s claim of supplied jurisdiction for confessions is wholly unrelated to any state of necessity. Necessity is not necessary for supplied jurisdiction. Instead the Society relies, in part, on the Canon Law provisions pertaining to common error of law or fact.

I agree that supplied jurisdiction does not apply carte blanche in every case, but only cases that meet the requirements of Canon Law. However, as Salza explains, those situations are much more common than only danger of death situations. Canon Law’s notion of common error is an old one and the one most applicable to the Society Chapel situation.

I also agree that a suspended priest must have a grave reason to absolve without jursduction or faculties, however the Canons and punishments regarding this affect the priest in question. Those canons do not deal with validity but whether the priest acts morally in absolving.

As we have been discussing, the issue comes down to who is giving the priest the faculties to absolve. The answer in the case of a suspended priest is , No one. Therefore, they have to renly on the Church supplying, which is not a blanket statement. Then you have the blanket statement made by Benedict XVI, “they do not exercise any legitimate ministry”. The key word is legitimate. For absolution to be legitimate, the person absolving must have faculties from either the local bishop or a major superior of men. Salza is entitled to his opinion, but this is not the practice.

You have to be very careful when you read someone like Salza, because he is trying very hard to help out the SSPX and others. But the commentaries on canon law are a more reliable source. I was trying to find one online and I can’t. All the ones that I found are for sale. If you want to buy a reader friendly one, I recommend the Navarre edition.

I should add here, in answer to your question, that John Paul II, did not use canon law when he said that there was no state of emergency. This has been said by him and now Benedict XVI in different letters and statements. You can google SSPX and the pope by name. You’ll come up with different letters and statements. Both popes have overruled (not quite the word that I’m looking for) canon law in the case of the SSPX. From reading different statements that they have made, my take is that they are not cutting them slack by letting them use canon law as their defense.

This, SSPX aside, is something that any pope can do. Since canon law only exists at the pleasure of the pope, the pope can also apply it or not and his word is final. Many people, laity more than religious and clergy, have a problem with this. People like to have rules in print and fixed. But in the Church, rules (not doctrine) are only fixed as long as the pope agrees with them or wants to make use of them. If he does not want to use them, he can sidestep them. It comes with his authority as Pontiff. I thnk that Americans, more than any other group, find this to be most disconcerting. We’re not used to presidents overstepping the Constitutions. The difference, of course, is that the President is not the law giver.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lamentabili]

As for the “legitimate ministry” quote from the Pope, it is really nothing new. He is simply stating that the situation of the Society has not yet been regularized and they do not yet have a juridical structure. The Society itself would admit as much. Nevertheless the Pope’s own Pontifical Commission has stated it is not a sin to assist at their Masses out of devotion to the TLM.

In addition, I believe that quote comes from a document where the Pope excoriates the liberal European Bishops and priests who opposed reconciliation with the Society to such a degree that they were publicly insubordinate to the Pope. In that document he chastises those who would try to thwart this reconciliation. He also speaks well of the Society’s many good fruits and their rightful concerns regarding VCII’s interpretation.