M
Magicsilence
Guest
I believe the Orthodox are not required to confess to a priest.
- Status
G
Genesis315
Guest
SSPX absolutions are not valid because the priests do not have authority from a bishop with valid jurisdicition–something schismatical bishops do not have:
From the Summa:
On the other hand, the power of jurisdiction is that which is conferred by a mere human appointment. Such a power as this does not adhere to the recipient immovably: so that it does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and consequently they neither absolve nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgence, nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid.
newadvent.org/summa/3039.htm#3
I know I would never risk my eternal soul going to a priest where there was a chance my absolution would be invalid–even if said priest was a shorter drive than another priest.
M
Missa_Solemnis
Guest
Im afraid I would have to rephrase and sayThe 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,
If only the Council fathers had trusted in God to keep the church safe, and didnt start the Second Vatican Council.
If they had only trusted in Christ
And as for the validity of the absolutions. As superior general of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay as well as the other three SSPX Bishops have jurisdiction over the members of the Society.
The SSPX absolutions are valid.
M
Melanie01
Guest
Ahhhhhh…lets bash the SPPX, must be doing something right these guys…
it feels like a baptist board …
it feels like a baptist board …
G
Genesis315
Guest
Stating it doesn’t make it so. You have provided no evidence.
As St. Thomas showed above, schismatical bishops have no jurisdiction. And they are schismatical. From HH Pope Pius VI:
"For the right of ordaining bishops belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions. " (Charitas, 1791).
C
chrisb
Guest
As St. Thomas showed above, schismatical bishops have no jurisdiction. And they are schismatical. From HH Pope Pius VI:
"For the right of ordaining bishops belongs only to the Apostolic See, as the Council of Trent declares; it cannot be assumed by any bishop or metropolitan without obliging Us to declare schismatic both those who ordain and those who are ordained, thus invalidating their future actions. " (Charitas, 1791).
If this is so then how can the Pope John Paul II recognize the validity of Eastern Orthodox Sacraments?
All of their living Bishops are schismatic and thus invalidating their future actions…
hypocrisy…
A
AlexV
Guest
There’s a lot of hypocrisy in some parts of the Church when it comes to the SSPX.
If the SSPX are in schism, so are the Orthodox. So are the Chinese schismatics who just consecrated another bishop…we didn’t hear much hoopla from Rome about that, now did we? Did we see a statement from the Congregation of Bishops explicitly condemning it? Not yet. A statement of “regret” came from Rome…but no explicit excommunications.
Further, some American prelates have actually let their cathedrals be used for Methodist “consecrations”, which aren’t even valid.
As long as this sort of hypocrisy abounds, there will be an SSPX. At least it helps keep Rome somewhat honest.
If the SSPX are in schism, so are the Orthodox. So are the Chinese schismatics who just consecrated another bishop…we didn’t hear much hoopla from Rome about that, now did we? Did we see a statement from the Congregation of Bishops explicitly condemning it? Not yet. A statement of “regret” came from Rome…but no explicit excommunications.
Further, some American prelates have actually let their cathedrals be used for Methodist “consecrations”, which aren’t even valid.
As long as this sort of hypocrisy abounds, there will be an SSPX. At least it helps keep Rome somewhat honest.
T
Thursday1
Guest
The solution to this supposed problem is a careful reading of the CCL.
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.
Canon law only applies to the Latin Rite. SSPX priests are baptized into and ordained in the Latin Rite (usually), therefore they are bound by canon law; the Eastern Orthodox are not bound by this canon.
Can. 11
Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
so, not hypocrisy, just a bit more complicated than you initially thought.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
M
Magicsilence
Guest
Im afraid I would have to rephrase and say
If only the Council fathers had trusted in God to keep the church safe, and didnt start the Second Vatican Council.
If they had only trusted in Christ
And as for the validity of the absolutions. As superior general of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay as well as the other three SSPX Bishops have jurisdiction over the members of the Society.
The SSPX absolutions are valid.
That’s exactly who God sends to keep the Church safe!
Apples and oranges!
R
Resurrexit
Guest
The Orthodox deny two principal dogmas of the faith. Filioque and Papal Infallibility.
There’s no wriggle room here. They are heretics, just as the Protestants are heretics.
There’s no wriggle room here. They are heretics, just as the Protestants are heretics.
T
Thursday1
Guest
Did I deny that the Eastern Orthodox were in Schism? They are in Schism, but they are not bound by the CCL. The SSPX Bishop’s are in Schism, and are bound by the CCL.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
B
bear06
Guest
Im afraid I would have to rephrase and say
If only the Council fathers had trusted in God to keep the church safe, and didnt start the Second Vatican Council.
If they had only trusted in Christ
And as for the validity of the absolutions. As superior general of the SSPX, Bishop Fellay as well as the other three SSPX Bishops have jurisdiction over the members of the Society.
If you are going to try and use the canon regarding the members of the society then how can one stick to the claim that there are no lay members of the SSPX?I believe there is now a third order but who knows what the validity of that is.
No priest, unless in case of death, can hear confessions without the permission of the local ordinary - not the Jesuits, not the Franciscans, not the diocesan priest and not the SSPX.
A
AlexV
Guest
Sorry, there are cases, not specifically defined, where the principle of “Ecclesia supplet” comes into play.
One of the joys of being Catholic. Sanity often prevails over blind legalism.
One of the joys of being Catholic. Sanity often prevails over blind legalism.
T
Thursday1
Guest
Sorry, but Jimmy Akin has already debunked Ecclesai Supplet. Since he does it more eloquently than I can, I’ll just post the link: Here
The most important point is that the Church supplies faculties to Her own ministers, not those in schism.
Yours in Christ,
Thursday
P.S.
An invalid absolution does not necessarily mean that forgiveness is not given, as the penitent might be in a state of perfect contrition. I, for my own part, do not like to judge my level of contrition perfect, as I am sure it is not. I think going to a source for confession that would require perfect contrition every time would either be the height of pride, or the depths of stupidity.
A
AlexV
Guest
Jimmy Akin isn’t infallible (contrary to what some think). Neither am I; but I’m also more nuanced than some on these and other Catholic fora. I didn’t say the Confessions were valid. But I didn’t say they were invalid. Because legitimate doubt exists. See below for further legitimate doubt.
Always important to remember that we are not sure if SSPX priests are individually in schism. Again, contrary to what some think.
Interestingly, I can name four couples, married in the SSPX, whose marriages were not radically sanated after going over to the FSSP.
Always important to remember that we are not sure if SSPX priests are individually in schism. Again, contrary to what some think.
Interestingly, I can name four couples, married in the SSPX, whose marriages were not radically sanated after going over to the FSSP.
G
Genesis315
Guest
But the bishops are, which is where they get their jurisdiction–and if the bishops have none to give, then the priests have none.
But as you say, it is only a legitimate doubt, that is enough for any God-fearing soul who is not so blinded by pride to go to a true Catholic church for the sacraments where no such doubt exists.
A
AlexV
Guest
Gee…would that it were so easy.
I’ve been to “true Catholic churches” where I was told (in the confessional) that something wasn’t a sin and didn’t require absolution, and that the priest wouldn’t give absolution for it.
I’ve been to “true Catholic churches” where confessions weren’t even offered at scheduled times, and where the local ordinary ignored a letter asking why confessions weren’t offered - though the church bulletin listed under “sacraments” “Annullment Counseling.”
I’ve been to “true Catholic churches” and been told that Jesus didn’t really resurrect with a physical body, but that “the experience transcended the physical, and was what we call metaphysical.”
I’ve been to “true Catholic churches” where a bishop has used invalid matter for the “consecration.”
So spare us, please.
I’ve been to “true Catholic churches” where I was told (in the confessional) that something wasn’t a sin and didn’t require absolution, and that the priest wouldn’t give absolution for it.
I’ve been to “true Catholic churches” where confessions weren’t even offered at scheduled times, and where the local ordinary ignored a letter asking why confessions weren’t offered - though the church bulletin listed under “sacraments” “Annullment Counseling.”
I’ve been to “true Catholic churches” and been told that Jesus didn’t really resurrect with a physical body, but that “the experience transcended the physical, and was what we call metaphysical.”
I’ve been to “true Catholic churches” where a bishop has used invalid matter for the “consecration.”
So spare us, please.
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
However, if the SSPX et all is actually in schism, then a growing number of their priests are not bound by the CCL as they were born and raised within the SSPX post-break. If they are not reunited within the next ~20 years, they will effectively be in the same canonical position as the Orthodox churches. So, with the younger SSPX priest the issue of jurisdiction may already be moot, as they are not bound to the restrictions indicated in the CCL - the debate about the validity of SSPX confessions is actually limited to questioning the authority to abvolve of thier older priests.
H
Ham1
Guest
Just a point of clarification…
Although the priests of SSPX may not themselves be in schism, they are suspended which renders them in the same position as priests who are in schism/excommunicated regarding jurisdiction. Hopefully, most of the SSPX priests are not in schism, but they remain suspended and their ability to absolve remains doubtful at best.
T
thurifer
Guest
It’s not actually a voluntary, it’s the third movement of Vivaldi’s Concerto for Two Trumpets in C Major.
- Status