Simple question about the SSPX

[hamburglar]

Okay, I’m am finding SO much information on the SSPX, but I can’t find a simple answer to this question: Is it okay to go to a SSPX Mass and receive Communion? For this to be a yes, it has to be both valid and licit.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Okay, I’m am finding SO much information on the SSPX, but I can’t find a simple answer to this question: Is it okay to go to a SSPX Mass and receive Communion? For this to be a yes, it has to be both valid and licit.

It is hard to answer since SSPX is currently in a grey area.

You may attend an SSPX mass if your desire is to celebrate the liturgy in a traditional manner, rather than to adhere to schism. However that instantly puts you in rather a dubious position, unless the SSPX mass is the only one you could reasonably attend.
However you may not go to an SSPX confession, or be married in an SSPX church.

 

[bear06]

Okay, I’m am finding SO much information on the SSPX, but I can’t find a simple answer to this question: Is it okay to go to a SSPX Mass and receive Communion? For this to be a yes, it has to be both valid and licit.

The Mass of the SSPX is valid but illicit. The priests are suspended.

 

[hamburglar]

The Mass of the SSPX is valid but illicit. The priests are suspended.

I have been to my fair share of valid but illicit Novus Ordo Masses. However, I guess I did not know that the Priest in those Masses would commit liturgical abuses and make the Mass illicit, whereas an SSPX Mass I know beforehand that it will definitely be illicit.

So is the answer NO?

 

[bear06]

There really could be different answers depending on the situation. Malcom’s answer is about as complete as could be given. And, he’s quite correct that that marriages and confessions are not valid according to the Church.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

I think the others said it well: the SSPX masses are illicit, so it is not permissible to attend them except in extraordinary circumstances. Also, aren’t their confessions and marriages not only illicit, but also invalid? I’ve heard different arguments on that one, and I’d appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.

 

[bear06]

I think the others said it well: the SSPX masses are illicit, so it is not permissible to attend them except in extraordinary circumstances. Also, aren’t their confessions and marriages not only illicit, but also invalid? I’ve heard different arguments on that one, and I’d appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.

They have no faculties from the local ordinary. This is needed for any priest to officiate at a wedding or hear confessions. Lack of faculties (save for death or complete lack of knowledge in regards to confessions) renders the sacrament invalid.

Here’s what the Vatican has said on the issue:
latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e, contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have the proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplied these faculties so that the sacrament was valid (cf. Code of Canon Law c.144).

 

[NetNuncio]

I think the others said it well: the SSPX masses are illicit, so it is not permissible to attend them except in extraordinary circumstances. Also, aren’t their confessions and marriages not only illicit, but also invalid? I’ve heard different arguments on that one, and I’d appreciate it if someone could enlighten me.

Again, extraordinary circumstances for marriage and confession. They are not invalid. As for marriage, in the Latin Rite, the bride and groom administer the sacrament to each other, so the validity isn’t in question. Their confessions are, again, valid, but illicit. One should only make use of their sacraments if it is impossible to receive them from a licit priest and there is great need.

Adam

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Again, extraordinary circumstances for marriage and confession. They are not invalid. As for marriage, in the Latin Rite, the bride and groom administer the sacrament to each other, so the validity isn’t in question. Their confessions are, again, valid, but illicit. One should only make use of their sacraments if it is impossible to receive them from a licit priest and there is great need.

Adam

I am pro-SSPX. I converted to the Catholic Church through the SSPX and still attend Mass there from time to time, so I am not biased against them.

But, for confession and marriage to be valid requires jurisdiction. The bide and Groom do administer the sacrament to each other, but they must do this according to Church law or it is invalid; and Church law requires that the minister have juridiction. It is the same with confession: It requires jurisdiction.

As one person said, there is an exception to this when there are extraordinary circumstances. For example, when you are in the great apostasy (such as we are today) when virtually every Priest is a heretic, or at least very tainted by Liberalism, the Church supplies jurisdiction. For example if two people want to get married, but they are on a desert Island or somewhere else where there will not be a Preist for more than 2 months, they can actually marry themselves without any Priest or witnesses. It is the exception to the rule.

In our day, when the bishops and Priest (and Popes - thinking of Assisi and “the old covenant was never revoked by God”) are leading the faithful into perdition, there is no question that a person is justified in attending a Mass where the sacraments are administered with the proper respect and devotion that they should be, and where the sermons are perfectly orthodox, as is the case with the SSPX…

Since we are in extraordinary times, I believe that the SSPX Preist have supplied jurisdiction, just as St. Athanasius, the objectively schismatic and excommunicated bishop did during the Arian Crisis. St. Athanasius - “The Cahmpion of Othodoxy” - had been banned from his diocese and excommunicated by the Pope, yet continued to act as a Priest. In the end he was proven right for holding fast to what the Church had always taught, and surely he had supplied jurisdiction, just as the SSPX does today. The difference is that we live in a time that is far worse than the Arian crisis.

So, in normal times the sacraments of confession and Matrimony would be invalid if administered by a Priest in the situation that the SSPX is in, but during our present crisis it is another story.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Again, extraordinary circumstances for marriage and confession. They are not invalid. As for marriage, in the Latin Rite, the bride and groom administer the sacrament to each other, so the validity isn’t in question. Their confessions are, again, valid, but illicit. One should only make use of their sacraments if it is impossible to receive them from a licit priest and there is great need.

Adam

Adam, don’t quite get what you are saying here.

A confession to an SSPX priest is valid only in the case of an extreme emergency, otherwise a priest must have faculties to hear confessions validly, not not licitly, unless those participating are truly ignorant of this fact.

As for marriage, Catholics are bound by the Law of the Church which covers this. Seeking a marriage from the SSPX is the same as doing so from any other non-Catholic group and would be invalid due to a defect of form. As a Catholic requires a dispensation for their bishop to be married outside of a Catholic Church and as the SSPX are not in communion with the local ordinary and do not have faculties from him there buildings are not Catholic Churches, they are SSPX chapels.

As for a case of an emergency, I can not fathom how this would work with a marriage, has there ever been a case where someone needed to have a wedding in the case of death?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

In our day, when the bishops and Priest (and Popes - thinking of Assisi and “the old covenant was never revoked by God”) are leading the faithful into perdition, there is no question that a person is justified in attending a Mass where the sacraments are administered with the proper respect and devotion that they should be, and where the sermons are perfectly orthodox, as is the case with the SSPX…
.

I believe the Council of Trent has something to say about the idea that the Church can lead people in such a way.

And seeing that the SSPX can lead a person into schism, I would stay away from them like the plague.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I am pro-SSPX. I converted to the Catholic Church through the SSPX and still attend Mass there from time to time, so I am not biased against them.

But, for confession and marriage to be valid requires jurisdiction. The bide and Groom do administer the sacrament to each other, but they must do this according to Church law or it is invalid; and Church law requires that the minister have juridiction. It is the same with confession: It requires jurisdiction.

As one person said, there is an exception to this when there are extraordinary circumstances. For example, when you are in the great apostasy (such as we are today) when virtually every Priest is a heretic, or at least very tainted by Liberalism, the Church supplies jurisdiction. For example if two people want to get married, but they are on a desert Island or somewhere else where there will not be a Preist for more than 2 months, they can actually marry themselves without any Priest or witnesses. It is the exception to the rule.

In our day, when the bishops and Priest (and Popes - thinking of Assisi and “the old covenant was never revoked by God”) are leading the faithful into perdition, there is no question that a person is justified in attending a Mass where the sacraments are administered with the proper respect and devotion that they should be, and where the sermons are perfectly orthodox, as is the case with the SSPX…

Since we are in extraordinary times, I believe that the SSPX Preist have supplied jurisdiction, just as St. Athanasius, the objectively schismatic and excommunicated bishop did during the Arian Crisis. St. Athanasius - “The Cahmpion of Othodoxy” - had been banned from his diocese and excommunicated by the Pope, yet continued to act as a Priest. In the end he was proven right for holding fast to what the Church had always taught, and surely he had supplied jurisdiction, just as the SSPX does today. The difference is that we live in a time that is far worse than the Arian crisis.

So, in normal times the sacraments of confession and Matrimony would be invalid if administered by a Priest in the situation that the SSPX is in, but during our present crisis it is another story.

The Code of Canon Law spells out the circumstances under which ecclesia supplet, and “extraordinary times” is not one of them. All priests have supplied faculties to absolve sins in danger of death, but even when times are extraordinary, you otherwise need some sort of factual or legal common error (canons regarding approaching non-Catholic ministers in times of impossibility presume those ministers themselves administer valid sacraments - since the SSPX are censured Catholics, this does not apply to them).

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I believe the Council of Trent has something to say about the idea that the Church can lead people in such a way.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify my statement. The Church cannot lead anyone into error, but Churchmen can. Let me give you an example…

Pope John Paul II repeatedly taught that “the old covenant was never revoked by God”. The US Bishops gave us a document intepreting that statement to mean that the Old Covenant is salvifice and that it is now theologically inapropriate to attempt to convert the unbelieving Jews.

Those Catholics who followed that teaching of John Paul II, as interpreted by the US Bishops, are objectively heretics.

That is just one example of churchmen leading Catholics into perditon.

The SSPX would never teach or accept that heresy.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The Code of Canon Law spells out the circumstances under which ecclesia supplet, and “extraordinary times” is not one of them. All priests have supplied faculties to absolve sins in danger of death, but even when times are extraordinary, you otherwise need some sort of factual or legal common error (canons regarding approaching non-Catholic ministers in times of impossibility presume those ministers themselves administer valid sacraments - since the SSPX are censured Catholics, this does not apply to them).

St. Athanasius was excommunicated by the Pope and banned from is diocese, spending 17 years in exile. Did he have supplied jurisdiction? If not, why? If so, how?

 

[Sure]

Thanks for allowing me to clarify my statement. The Church cannot lead anyone into error, but Churchmen can. Let me give you an example…

Pope John Paul II repeatedly taught that “the old covenant was never revoked by God”. The US Bishops gave us a document intepreting that statement to mean that the Old Covenant is salvifice and that it is now theologically inapropriate to attempt to convert the unbelieving Jews.
Those Catholics who followed that teaching of John Paul II, as interpreted by the US Bishops, are objectively heretics.

That is just one example of churchmen leading Catholics into perditon.

The SSPX would never teach or accept that heresy.

Can you please provide a quotation from an authoritative document that shows that this was done? Heretic is a pretty strong charge, I’d like to see your proof of this. Also, if following the teaching of Pope John Paul II makes one a heretic, as you say, then it would seem Pope John Paul II ceased being Pope. When exactly did that happen? And is there currently a Pope?

Thanks!

 

[cam100]

St. Athanasius was excommunicated by the Pope and banned from is diocese, spending 17 years in exile. Did he have supplied jurisdiction? If not, why? If so, how?

I would suspect that the Church did not have the same detailed laws of jurisdiction in those early times as it does today. If you have some information that shows otherwise, however, please share it.

 

[fatima1917]

Okay, I’m am finding SO much information on the SSPX, but I can’t find a simple answer to this question: Is it okay to go to a SSPX Mass and receive Communion? For this to be a yes, it has to be both valid and licit.

Simple answer you want?

SSPX is a church with its own episcopacy that is in direct rebellion against the magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church under the reigning pontif Pope Benedict XVI. It is illicit to receive the sacraments from such a church.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Simple answer you want?

SSPX is a church with its own episcopacy that is in direct rebellion against the magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church under the reigning pontif Pope Benedict XVI. It is illicit to receive the sacraments from such a church.

And in some cases, confession and marriage, those sacraments are invalid if a Catholic attempts to receive them.

As has been stated by the Catholic Church and is easily found within Canon Law.

A priest must have faculties to administer either of those sacraments which the SSPX do not have.

As for “churchmen” leading the faithful into perdition, if the Catholic Church has remained silent on this matter then it is just as guilty as those “churchmen”, so again, I say, the Council of Trent has something to say about that and if a person disagrees with it then I believe that they are in objective heresy.

 

[hamburglar]

Thanks for allowing me to clarify my statement. The Church cannot lead anyone into error, but Churchmen can. Let me give you an example…

Pope John Paul II repeatedly taught that “the old covenant was never revoked by God”. The US Bishops gave us a document intepreting that statement to mean that the Old Covenant is salvifice and that it is now theologically inapropriate to attempt to convert the unbelieving Jews.

Those Catholics who followed that teaching of John Paul II, as interpreted by the US Bishops, are objectively heretics.

That is just one example of churchmen leading Catholics into perditon.

The SSPX would never teach or accept that heresy.

Woah, woah, woah! Can you spell it out in very simple manner what you mean by this? What do I have to believe about what you are talking about to not be considered a heretic?

 

[Sure]

As for “churchmen” leading the faithful into perdition, if the Catholic Church has remained silent on this matter then it is just as guilty as those “churchmen”, so again, I say, the Council of Trent has something to say about that and if a person disagrees with it then I believe that they are in objective heresy.

It seems to me that a good example of leading people into perdition are the SSPX priests who give people absolution when they know that they cannot validly do so…what an injustice to those who come to them for spiritual guidance!