SSPX’s Canonical Status?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CorAdCorLoquitur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
He did that not to affect their status, but for the sake of the laity who attend. In other words, his intent was to pastorially address the needs of those who only attend SSPX chapels. Nothing in his action has changed, challenged, or disagreed with Pope Benedict’s statement.
 
Last edited:
There are two issues in law: one is “de jure” and the other is “de facto”.

De jure means that the matter has had a legal conclusion; the Orthodox Churches are de jure in schism.

De facto means that there has not been a legal (as in, Cononical) decision; it means that the facts exist, but no legal decision has been rendered on those facts. A polite what to put it is that the “matter” is “irregular”.

Gerhard Cardinal Muller, while he was head of the CDF, publicly said that the SSPX are not de jure - legally - in schism, but that the are factually in schism.

The net of that is that the Church, starting with Pope Paul VI and continuing through each Pope since then, has made the decision to not press forward with a legal finding that the SSPX are in schism, likely in part due to the fact that it is far easier to reconcile with someone without the legal process providing more bitterness and distance between the parties (as ca be seen with the more than 1,000 years of difficulties between the Orthodox and the Church).

The interview with Bishop Fellay is telling of the difficulties; it is more of the cat-and-mouse statements that have been the constant game of words that have come from the SSPX; in the end he appears to say that the SSPX is still attempting to dictate terms of any reconciliation. Whether that is likely to fly can make for all sorts of cocktail dialogue; but the article is now 22 months old and there does not appear to be any more progress than there was at the time the interview was conducted.

The irregularity is no legal fiction; it is real. It is factual, and at least some significant facts have remained in place since Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI got into it.
 
The only statements I have heard, and I have heard many, is from the representatives of the bishop, priests and deacons, who have made it an issue to talk about this group. they are described as a non Catholic group and attendance at their masses does not fulfill the Sunday obligation.
 
We live in an anti-hierarchy era. The media has positive articles about any laity who (in good conscience of course) courageously “stand up” to their pastor, or bishop. Obedience of any kind is regarded almost as venial sin. Even on TV, the child is always wiser than the parents, the hero is always defying the Authority.

People talk about Left and Right as opposites, but they are part of the same anti authority trend in religion.
SSPX is not that different from National Catholic Reporter or Call to Action. They all say don’t follow orders, follow your conscience.

In 2019, the media has trained us to define conscience as defiance.

On their website, SSPX’ harshest criticism is not for Planned Parenthood, or secular media, or Protestants, or liberal bishops or cardinals.
It is aimed at FSSP.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
SSPX is not that different from National Catholic Reporter or Call to Action. They all say don’t follow orders, follow your conscience.
Click to expand...
This isn’t true, though. Call to Action, for example, is pushing for changes to Church teaching. The SSPX desires to hang onto what has always been taught.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
40.png
gracepoole:
The SSPX desires to hang onto what has always been taught.
Click to expand...
Oh please. Always been taught?? For example…a Bishop’s submission to the Holy Father? You mean like that?
Click to expand...
No. Like rejection of religious liberty. Like that.
 
gracepoole said:
40.png
commenter:
SSPX is not that different from National Catholic Reporter or Call to Action. They all say don’t follow orders, follow your conscience.
Click to expand...
This isn’t true, though. Call to Action, for example, is pushing for changes to Church teaching. The SSPX desires to hang onto what has always been taught.
Click to expand...
Ok. But they both have similar attitude to the authority of their local bishops. They both would say they respect their position, and may happen to endorse certain actions of certain bishops, or popes. But neither is affected, or altered, by teachings of living bishops or popes.

Even CTA would say it is in line with censored forgotten prophetic social justice or spirituality traditions of the Church. They can always find a quote to make it seem they are following some saint, and, like SSPX, boast they are “independent”. Those on the Left often quote out of context from old holy “rebels”, or old documents. They even quote from Pope Leo 13 or Pope John 23. They, like SSPX, seek the label of tradition. But they only obey dead popes and bishops; and only certain dead ones.
 
Last edited:
Their canonical status is somewhat complicated.

Their status is irregular.

Their priests have the jurisdiction to grant absolution so you could go to confession with them.

They may have the jurisdiction to assist at marriage if delegated by the local ordinary.

If the option was to miss Mass on Sunday or go to an SSPX Mass you can satisfy the obligation at an SSPX Mass. If the choice existed between a church that was not in such an irregular situation or an SSPX church you should go to the church whose status is canonically regular.
 
I would guess that maybe one percent of Catholics in the US live in places where they could make it to an SSPX chapel, but not to a parish in union with a diocese. I am thinking of those who don’t drive, who live near only a chapel.

Other countries I am not informed, but I would think that chapels are located in areas where there are many parishes.
 
Last edited:
That is not true. there were things that my grandfather’s brothers and sisters were taught as children in the Catholic schools that the SSPX and their followers condemn.
 
poche said:
That is not true. there were things that my grandfather’s brothers and sisters were taught as children in the Catholic schools that the SSPX and their followers condemn.
Click to expand...
Like what?
 
Kolbe1 said:
The Church has always taught that ones submission and obedience to superiors is limited to the faith. Otherwise you make of Catholics blind idolators.

That is why St. Thomas Aquinas “sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” (Summa, II-II, Q. 104, Art 5).
Click to expand...
There indeed are (rare) times when we must disobey our our local pastor, or immediate superior in religious life, if they go against Scripture or sacred Tradition. But Scripture and Tradition do not interpret themselves. Even persons with doctorates in Theology disagree over which of the hundreds of authoritative documents apply in a given situation.

A website can quote portions of a particular document, but I don’t know what parts they omit, or what other documents exist that are more applicable. Thus, “private interpretation of Tradition” , doesn’t work, anymore than private interpretation of Scripture.

St Thomas accepted the authority of the Living Magisterium to interpret Tradition and Scripture. Otherwise every person becomes their own pope, following this priest or that one, to contradictory conclusions. The priest in charge of sspx expresses an interpretation of Tradition. How do I know his interpretation is more valid than that of any other priest?
 
Last edited:
The people in the Old Catholic movement say they haven’t left the Church. They said they even follow the Church leaders except when they are wrong.

But how do they know what’s right? They fall back on Tradition. But this really means following this or that leader’s interpretation of Tradition. This caused them to divide into groups that disagree with each other, as well as with Rome and SSPX, on interpretation of Tradition.

So it’s not really Tradition itself (or Scripture itself) individuals are using as a template to evaluate the living Magisterium; it’s really Fr. Pagliarani’s interpretation, vs. many different Old Catholic and other rival interpretations, vs the Magisterium interpretation, of Tradition.
 
Last edited:
Kolbe1 said:
Do do they hold to the deposit of the faith?
Click to expand...
From their own points of view, yes. So do many other Tradition based groups - from their own, different, POV.

The question is, does one Tradition based group consider that all the other Tradition based group retain the full deposit of faith and interpret it “correctly”.

Sometimes not.
 
Last edited:
This published today by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski.

He renders six theological conclusions:
  1. It is morally licit for the faithful to participate in SSPX Masses if they are physically or morally impeded from participating in another Mass.
  2. An example of a moral impediment that could justify a Catholic’s attendance at SSPX liturgies would be consistent and predictable liturgical abuses at local Masses, in violation of the rights of the faithful as articulated in Redemptionis Sacramentum , or the persistent refusal to provide the usus antiquior when it has been requested in accordance with Summorum Pontificum.
  3. It is incumbent on the lay faithful, in accordance with Redemptionis Sacramentum (see esp. nn. 169–184), to report to the local bishop graviora delicta (172), grave matters (173), other abuses (174), and even untraditional and disedifying customs (cf. 11–12), in a respectful and charitable manner. If, after a reasonable amount of time, no steps have been taken to remedy the problems and no other solution is in sight, the faithful cannot be said to have failed to do their part in attempting to rectify the situation. A lack of responsiveness and correction would tend to augment the moral impediment to participation in such abusive liturgies.
  4. Those who attend an SSPX chapel because of a moral impediment to attending Mass elsewhere are permitted to make a modest contribution to the collection and to receive Holy Communion.
  5. Based on other responses from the PCED, a Catholic who does not have other options may fulfill his obligation at an SSPX chapel but not at an “independent” chapel, because there is no certainty on the part of the Church as to whether such a chapel is served by a validly ordained priest and so forth.
  6. Catholics may go to Confession in SSPX chapels because Pope Francis has granted their clergy permanent faculties for hearing confessions. If Catholics would like to get married in an SSPX chapel, my understanding is that they need to be in contact with the local bishop to ask him to grant faculties to the SSPX priest to witness the marriage, per Pope Francis’s provisions.
onepeterfive.com

Is It Ever Okay to Take Shelter in an SSPX Mass?

Over the years, many people have written to me for advice about attending Mass when their local situation is deplorably bad. The most common scenario I have been asked about is the following: “Our…
onepeterfive.com onepeterfive.com
 
If you’re interested in the SSPX, consider looking into the history of the Old Catholic movements, including where they are now. This was a forerunner of SSPX, a group of sincere Catholics who articulated some of the same theories as on this thread, in the modern world.

The SSPX movements may follow some of the same path, to where they are today. The OCs of 2019 might be the fully developed version.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top