SSPX 1988 Consecration video

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicNick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TradyDaddy said:
I have a question. When the 5 SSPX Priests were accepted and given the new indult Order a few months ago, were they re-ordained, or conditionally re-ordained?
Click to expand...
Neither. The validity of their ordination is not in doubt. Licit - that’s another matter, but entirely valid, and therefore no re-ordination would be necessary.
 
Resurrexit said:
Well, maybe I was wrong (never known that to happen before). 😉 😃

On the other hand, it still only refers to the automatic excommunications. It doesn’t say ‘we hereby excommunicate Bishops…’.

PS. I think they probably were automatically excommunicated, but it is at least somewhat doubtful.
Click to expand...
Resurrexit, buddy, dude…How do you not see this???

You say the doubt is due to the canon that a Bishop can consecrate “if necessary”. Okay, I get that. But the consecrations by Lefebvre were declared by JPII with the force of law as a schismatic act. There is no wiggle room here. He did not say, “it might not have been necessary” he said “schismatic act.” Since Ecclesia Dei carries the force of canon law, his ruling is final and ultimately determinative.

From Ecclesia Die we know:
  1. The act was schismatic.
  2. The penalty for schismatic acts is excommunication.
So, why do you persist in claiming the excommunications are in any doubt?
 
Here we go again…it’d be educational to watch how ceremonies were conducted in the Classical Roman Rite, but I personally still would not watch SSPX ceremonies since the purpose of celebrating Mass is to express Communion or rather Catholicity. The Mass is not a ‘tool’ to express defiance.
 
Resurrexit said:
No sorry. :o But if you look up the 1983 Code of Canon Law - it’s in there somewhere. 🙂
Click to expand...
Actually, I believe it says something to the effect that if there is necessity - not if a bishop deems there is necessity. Could be wrong though that’s why I wanted the canon. You might want to check it out to make sure you have it right. I do know that the Pope, however, is the arbiter of necessity and Lefebvre knew that the Pope had determined it wasn’t necessary to consecrate the 4.
 
And just to add a personal touch, I often go to an SSPX confessional seeing that its very close to my house and I myself am one big lousy sinner.
Click to expand...
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! The SSPX do not have faculties from the local ordinary which are needed for valid confessions. This is canon law. The confession of the SSPX are not valid.

Here are the canons on this:
Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.
Click to expand...
§2. A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority according to the norm of ⇒ can. 969.
Click to expand...
Can. 969 §1. The local ordinary alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful. Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior.
Click to expand...
§2. The superior of a religious institute or society of apostolic life mentioned in ⇒ can. 968, §2 is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of their subjects and of others living day and night in the house.
Click to expand...
 
Resurrexit said:
Those of the SSPX say that ‘traditionalists’ owe the ‘Indult’ Masses to the efforts of Archbishop Lefebvre. I think in some ways they are right.

I like the trumpet voluntary. 😛
Click to expand...
Of course they are right. Does anyone really believe we’d have the FSSP and the Indult without the SSPX?
 
UKcatholicGuy said:
Of course they are right. Does anyone really believe we’d have the FSSP and the Indult without the SSPX?
Click to expand...
Can anyone say for sure that we wouldn’t?! I guess I just lost my omniscience somewhere. Hmmm…Now where did I put it?:rotfl:
 
bear06 said:
Can anyone say for sure that we wouldn’t?! I guess I just lost my omniscience somewhere. Hmmm…Now where did I put it?:rotfl:
Click to expand...
I simply asked if anyone believed that we would, I never stated that I knew for sure we wouldn’t, but I feel quite confident in saying that the SSPX is the reason for the indult. After all, it wasn’t until the 1988 episcopal consecrations that JPII all of a sudden decided to call for a more generous granting of the indult.
 
bear06 said:
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! The SSPX do not have faculties from the local ordinary which are needed for valid confessions. This is canon law. The confession of the SSPX are not valid.

Here are the canons on this:
Click to expand...
Can. 969 §1. The local ordinary alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful. Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior.
Click to expand...
§2. The superior of a religious institute or society of apostolic life mentioned in ⇒ can. 968, §2 is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of their subjects and of others living day and night in the house
Click to expand...
SSPX priests are not under the authority of their local bishop. They are under the four bishops of their order, one of which is their superior general. They get the right to absolve sins from those valid bishops.

So yes, the SSPX priests can indeed absolve sins.
 
Sola_Roma said:
SSPX priests are not under the authority of their local bishop. They are under the four bishops of their order, one of which is their superior general. They get the right to absolve sins from those valid bishops.

So yes, the SSPX priests can indeed absolve sins.
Click to expand...
That has always been my understanding as well.
 
m134e5 said:
There is nothing beautiful about committing a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
If you can seperate the liturgy from the people, then yes the liturgy is pretty. Anyone have a video of a licit traditional consecration?
Sola Roma:
SSPX priests are not under the authority of their local bishop. They are under the four bishops of their order, one of which is their superior general. They get the right to absolve sins from those valid bishops.

So yes, the SSPX priests can indeed absolve sins.
Click to expand...
I understood it this way as well.

Besides, lets remember we have an all merciful God.

Someone was raised in the SSPX, commits mortal sin, confesses to an SSPX priest, then dies. Will he perish in Hell?

I sincerely doubt it. The person repented, he thought the priest’s absolution was valid. (Which, from what I understand, it is).

God understands this. If He does not, then He is not God. He walks in EVERYONE’S shoes, and knows that the person had a contrite heart.
 
Ham1 said:
You say the doubt is due to the canon that a Bishop can consecrate “if necessary”. Okay, I get that. But the consecrations by Lefebvre were declared by JPII with the force of law as a schismatic act.
Click to expand...
They were not declared. That is the point. The only things the documents make reference to, is the act of cosecration, which it says would therefore have made them automatically excommunicated.

For instance, if a document referred to group x, then said ‘who are currently in schism’ - that is not a decree/definition that they are in schism. It is merely an indirect reference. Such things mean nothing.

JP II did not think they were necessary. I do not think the consecrations were necessary. However, Lefebvre clearly did, and that’s what matters.

Another important point, is that Lefebvre did not want to seperate himself from the Catholic Church. I do not think the consecrations were necessary. However, Lefebvre clearly did, and that’s what matters.
 
Resurrexit said:
They were not declared. That is the point. The only things the documents make reference to, is the act of cosecration, which it says would therefore have made them automatically excommunicated.

For instance, if a document referred to group x, then said ‘who are currently in schism’ - that is not a decree/definition that they are in schism. It is merely an indirect reference. Such things mean nothing.

JP II did not think they were necessary. I do not think the consecrations were necessary. However, Lefebvre clearly did, and that’s what matters.

Another important point, is that Lefebvre did not want to seperate himself from the Catholic Church. I do not think the consecrations were necessary. However, Lefebvre clearly did, and that’s what matters.
Click to expand...
I do not think it was right, but I can understand how Archbishop Lefebvre thought it was neccesary. He had no way of expecting the F.S.S.P in the future…to him unless he made new Bishops, then once he was dead the Latin mass would disapear.

Youd be surprised what a man would do to keep alive and well something he loves…
 
If SSPX confessions are invalid, then so are Orthodox confessions.
 
The thing about the SSPX is that they did not trust God to keep the Church safe, and thought he had left them alone to do it.

If they had only trusted in Christ, :o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top