C
CathMass
Guest
I was curious, if I obtain a sacramental blessed by an SSPX priest should I get it re-blessed by a priest in union with Rome or is the blessing okay?
- Status
K
kleary
Guest
The priest is still a valid priest. Therefore the blessing is also valid- the same as the Mass the priest says being valid.
Ken
Ken
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
Of course not. The blessing done by an SSPX priest actually involves more prayers and ritual than the new blessings done quickly by priests of the new rite. I would take the traditional blessing anytime over the quick sign of the cross, bless these items prayer of the new rite.
T
Thursday1
Guest
I am not certain of this, but would like to throw it out here. It might be that SSPX priests cannot grant blessings in the name of the Church, as they are not in Union with Rome. I am going to do some digging through canon law tonight, and I’ll post what I find.
Meaning the blessing is illicit and constitutes a grave matter? (some form of smily that looks like it is just asking for trouble!)
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
T
Thursday1
Guest
Okay, I’ve done a bit of looking through Canon Law, and per usual am more confused than ever.
On one side, it appears Priests need Jurisdiction to confect sacramentals, which Priests in the SSPX do not have.
CIC:
CIC:
CIC:
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
On one side, it appears Priests need Jurisdiction to confect sacramentals, which Priests in the SSPX do not have.
CIC:
However there is also Can. 1169 §2
CIC:
It is times like these that I am thankful I am only an armchair canonist. I think Can. 1169 is presuming that the presbyter has the “requisite power” mentioned in Can. 1168. I still have doubts that a Priest in the SSPX can administer a blessing in the name of the Church, but I have no conclusive proof as of yet. I will continue to search the CIC and Aquinas for some insights. The one thing I was able to discover is that Members of the SSPX cannot preform exorcisms.
CIC:
So, that’s all I have for right now.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
In an sincerity, Thursady, I would be very hesitant to advise someone on this issue by referring to your own interpretation of Canon law. (Just in case you have it wrong) You don’t want to mislead anyone.
G
Genesis315
Guest
True, but in cases like these it’s best to take the sure bet. There’s questions regarding SSPX blessings, but there is none regarding those with licit jurisdiction. For the same reasons I wouldn’t put confidence in a blessing by a Greek Orthodox priest or a Chinese National priest.
T
Thursday1
Guest
If I was just using my interpretation, I would have been much more hesitant to post, but I was not. I discovered that jurisdiction is required for conferring sacramentals from a source that is not antagonistic to the SSPX at all, Father Ramon Angles sspx.
Father Ramon Angles:
NOTE: all Canon Law references given according to the Code of 1918
So you see, even priests in the SSPX know that they require licit jurisdiction to confer sacramentals. The problem is, they do not have it. They do not receive it from the local ordinary, and their superiors cannot grant it as they are excommunicated material schismatics.
I am still going to do a bit more research in to Aquinas. I figure if it is anywhere, it is going to be there.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Do you have a link to what you posted above. It is always good to provide a link to the original document—that way we can know in what context statements are made.
T
Thursday1
Guest
Sorry, forgot to put that in my post
sspx.org/miscellaneous/validity_of_confessions_1.htm
It is the page on the SSPX website that deals with the validity of confessions and marriages in SSPX chapels. As far as I can tell, the conclusion of the piece is not commonly held among cononists.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
W
Walking_Home
Guest
So then—canonists can stop the flow of God’s grace.
T
Thursday1
Guest
No, but they can point out when the grace is not flowing due to an impediment.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Non belief in our Lord Christ as the Son of God both human and divine—would be the # 1 impediment–yet by current understanding --even a Muslim may be saved.
T
Thursday1
Guest
I think we are talking across purposes now. I am debating the notion that SSPX priests have jurisdiction, you are debating their salvation, I think. It is true that ignorance could almost be raised to the level of a sacrament, one that has saved more than all of the other seven combined. It is also possible (though not proven) that if their is “common error” with regards to the jurisdiction an SSPX priest posses, the Church might supply jurisdiction. However anyone who has looked into the matter seriously will be unable to claim “common error” as they will know their is a least grave doubt about the priest’s jurisdiction. (doubt is enough to nullify common error.)
So, here is my conclusion:
If the person asking the SSPX priest to bless the sacramental is not aware of any issues regarding jurisdiction, then there is a chance that the Church supplies the jurisdiction to the priest. However, if the ignorance about the priest’s position is in any way compromised, supplied jurisdiction via “common error” does not apply.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The flow of grace is found both in–blessing and salvation.
That is what I was addressing.
You said a canonist can pt. out impediments to the flow of grace. Non belief in our Lord Christ as the Son of God is the major #1 impedipent. Yet–apparently–grace still flows.
It seems that a bias double standard has been set up–with the SPPX getting the short end of the stick.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
I agree. Those poor SSPXers, for whom I have much sympathy and understanding, are always get beat up. angelqueen.org
W
Windmill
Guest
a very complex situation…but the “fix” seems a lot more easy than getting a series of invalid confessions remedied. just go ask a regular diocesan priest to bless it.
- Status