SSPX Bishops

[LINVS]

Are SSPX Bishops prohibited from giving sacraments by Rome? I know their priests are because they operate without the permission of the local NO bishops. If SSPX bishops are, is it because they lack their own diocese or because of some Roman decree?

Please excuse me if I’m not using the correct terms, but I hope my question is understood.

 

[curlycool89]

The bishops, so far as I understand it, are similarly under suspension and have no canonical ministry. Their Masses would be similarly valid illicitly. All Sacraments that they do are illicit because of their suspension. Illicit means illegal, celebrating the sacraments is breaking the law for them.

I would assume Confessions are still invalid because they lack jurisdiction, none of them possess Ordinary power. I’d actually be interested to hear whether Auxilliary Bishops of a diocese require faculties to hear confessions though, because the answer could help us understand.

 

[10thCrusader]

Actually because of the decree Summorum Pontificum issued by Benedict XVI, they are permitted to celebrate the EF Mass without the Bishop’s permission, as long as the following conditions are met:

1. 
   *]They do not speak or preach disobedience to the Holy Father.
   *]There is no other EF Mass available under regular conditions in the local area (such as indult Mass, FSSP, ICKSP, etc.)
   
   Under these conditions, the EF Mass they celebrate is valid and licit to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation, but any other sacraments, such as confession, are not valid.
   
   This action was taken to provide the EF in those dioceses where the bishops were not generous enough to provide the EF Mass to those who desired it. Fortunately, in most dioceses, there is a Sunday EF Mass provided under diocesan approval, so condition 2 is not often met.
   
   Concurrently, Benedict XVI rescinded their excommunication, but did not restore their full priestly faculties, hence the invalid confessions.
   
   There is still more work to be done before they are restored to full unity. Hopefully, Pope Francis will continue this work of Catholic unity that Benedict XVI started.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Actually because of the decree Summorum Pontificum issued by Benedict XVI, they are permitted to celebrate the EF Mass without the Bishop’s permission, as long as the following conditions are met:

1. 
   *]They do not speak or preach disobedience to the Holy Father.
   *]There is no other EF Mass available under regular conditions in the local area (such as indult Mass, FSSP, ICKSP, etc.)
   
   Under these conditions, the EF Mass they celebrate is valid and licit to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation, but any other sacraments, such as confession, are not valid.
   
   This action was taken to provide the EF in those dioceses where the bishops were not generous enough to provide the EF Mass to those who desired it. Fortunately, in most dioceses, there is a Sunday EF Mass provided under diocesan approval, so condition 2 is not often met.
   
   Concurrently, Benedict XVI rescinded their excommunication, but did not restore their full priestly faculties, hence the invalid confessions.
   
   There is still more work to be done before they are restored to full unity. Hopefully, Pope Francis will continue this work of Catholic unity that Benedict XVI started.

1. 
   Thank you Crusader for your weekly (name removed by moderator)ut on the SSPX. Which is 100% accurate, and 23 pages of fluff will not change that fact.
   
   See you next week!

 

[JM3]

Actually because of the decree Summorum Pontificum issued by Benedict XVI, they are permitted to celebrate the EF Mass without the Bishop’s permission, as long as the following conditions are met:

1. 
   *]They do not speak or preach disobedience to the Holy Father.
   *]There is no other EF Mass available under regular conditions in the local area (such as indult Mass, FSSP, ICKSP, etc.)
   
   Under these conditions, the EF Mass they celebrate is valid and licit to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation, but any other sacraments, such as confession, are not valid.
   
   This action was taken to provide the EF in those dioceses where the bishops were not generous enough to provide the EF Mass to those who desired it. Fortunately, in most dioceses, there is a Sunday EF Mass provided under diocesan approval, so condition 2 is not often met.
   
   Concurrently, Benedict XVI rescinded their excommunication, but did not restore their full priestly faculties, hence the invalid confessions.
   
   There is still more work to be done before they are restored to full unity. Hopefully, Pope Francis will continue this work of Catholic unity that Benedict XVI started.

1. 
   I believe that the priestly functions of the SSPX are suspended. That would include the Bishops. While their Mass is valid, I don’t believe it’s licit.

 

[Megan7]

Actually because of the decree Summorum Pontificum issued by Benedict XVI, they are permitted to celebrate the EF Mass without the Bishop’s permission, as long as the following conditions are met:

1. 
   *]They do not speak or preach disobedience to the Holy Father.
   *]There is no other EF Mass available under regular conditions in the local area (such as indult Mass, FSSP, ICKSP, etc.)
   
   Under these conditions, the EF Mass they celebrate is valid and licit to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation, but any other sacraments, such as confession, are not valid.
   
   This action was taken to provide the EF in those dioceses where the bishops were not generous enough to provide the EF Mass to those who desired it. Fortunately, in most dioceses, there is a Sunday EF Mass provided under diocesan approval, so condition 2 is not often met.
   
   Concurrently, Benedict XVI rescinded their excommunication, but did not restore their full priestly faculties, hence the invalid confessions.
   
   There is still more work to be done before they are restored to full unity. Hopefully, Pope Francis will continue this work of Catholic unity that Benedict XVI started.

 

[devoutchristian]

10th doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Summorum Pontificum has nothing to do with the SSPX. And while attendance at an SSPX mass does fulfill one’s Sunday obligation and is licit to attend, is it not licit on the part of the celebrant priest.

 

[MarkThompson]

Actually because of the decree Summorum Pontificum issued by Benedict XVI, they are permitted to celebrate the EF Mass without the Bishop’s permission, as long as the following conditions are met:

1. 
   *]They do not speak or preach disobedience to the Holy Father.
   *]There is no other EF Mass available under regular conditions in the local area (such as indult Mass, FSSP, ICKSP, etc.)
   
   Under these conditions, the EF Mass they celebrate is valid and licit to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation, but any other sacraments, such as confession, are not valid.

1. 
   This is not correct. I know that one extremely simplistic explanation of what Summorum Pontificum did is that it “allows any priest to say the TLM.” That seems to be the thinking you’re going by – SSPX “bishops” are priests, therefore a fortiori they can say the TLM – but this is a misleading conception.
   
   For instance, if you heard of a priest who decided to run off and leave the Church to get married (Fr. Cutié, for example), and who was defrocked, it would be obvious that he is not permitted to go about holding Masses of any sort whatsoever. Summorum Pontificum, it is plain, does not allow a Fr. Cutié to celebrate TLMs licitly. Thus it is not literally true that “any priest can say the TLM whenever he wants to,” or however it is that these things now get phrased on the message boards.
   
   A priest defrocked or suspended a divinis may not say any Mass at all, Summorum Pontificum notwithstanding.

 

[runningdude]

…

I would assume Confessions are still invalid because they lack jurisdiction, none of them possess Ordinary power. I’d actually be interested to hear whether Auxilliary Bishops of a diocese require faculties to hear confessions though, because the answer could help us understand.

All clerics require faculties to licitly hear confessions. Bishops, however, can validly absolve even while his faculties are suspended, while a priest cannot (except under emergency conditions).

 

[Mrs_Sally]

10th doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Summorum Pontificum has nothing to do with the SSPX. And while attendance at an SSPX mass does fulfill one’s Sunday obligation and is licit to attend, is it not licit on the part of the celebrant priest.

Licit if there isn’t a diocesean EF available. Also only if one is attending simply to have the EF and not because of any “schismatic mindset”. In that vein also, it might not be prudent to attend Mass at a SSPX chapel consistently.

I pray that reverant and beautiful Masses are regularly available for everyone, everywhere.

For those that would prefer the EF and have only an SSPX chapel in their area, I beg that you prayerfully consider offering your attendance at the OF for the sake of those who do not have a priest or Mass available to them at all.

 

[devoutchristian]

All clerics require faculties to licitly hear confessions. Bishops, however, can validly absolve even while his faculties are suspended, while a priest cannot (except under emergency conditions).

Source?

Licit if there isn’t a diocesean EF available.

It should be noted that technically this isn’t canonically required. I can’t see why a non-schismatic trad would attend an SSPX mass regularly if there was a diocesan TLM, but it’s not technically prohibited. It would be rather absurd if it were, since not even Protestant services are absolutely prohibited.

 

[MarkThompson]

All clerics require faculties to licitly hear confessions. Bishops, however, can validly absolve even while his faculties are suspended, while a priest cannot (except under emergency conditions).

This is only sort of true. Canon 967 § 1 says,
Bishops likewise have this faculty [viz., of hearing the confessions of the Christian faithful everywhere in the world] and use it licitly everywhere unless the diocesan bishop has denied it in a particular case.
So, the thinking goes, these SSPX “bishops” are, sacramentally speaking, bishops, and so they can simply go about hearing confessions at will.

It seems obvious when one looks at the canon, however, that this was written for the everyday governance of the Church, and not for the strange cases of episcopi vagantes and the like. Does one suppose that this canon grants Thuc-line sedevacantist bishops to hear confessions anywhere they want? Or, not to put too fine a point on it, recall that Eastern Orthodox bishops are “bishops” in the same way as the SSPX “bishops” are; does Canon 967 give them, too, faculties to hear Catholic confessions?

Rather, in keeping with the nature of the Code, and in particular Canon 375 –
§2. Through episcopal consecration itself, bishops receive with the function of sanctifying also the functions of teaching and governing; by their nature, however, these can only be exercised in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.
– it seems more correct to conclude that the suspended SSPX prelates do not enjoy any sort of de jure faculty in this regard at all, no more than an Old Catholic bishop might.

 

[runningdude]

The sacramental priesthood is given for the benefit of the faithful, rather than directly the benefit of the man ordained. As such, the ability to give absolution is for the benefit of those who approach the vagrant bishop. His ability to celebrate the sacraments is absolute, to preserve the local church in a crisis (such as the crisis the SSPX wrongly claims or previous claimed to exist).

The canons are complicated to understand, because they are written to encode both sacramental truth, and to dictate “everyday governance”. A defrocked cleric, for instance, is a layperson in canon law. This does not change the underlying nature of his soul, but rather forbids him to use his clerical graces. The law simply doesn’t address defrocked or “vagrant” bishops, because they have no lawful purpose as clerics.

It becomes complicated to interpret what a dismissed bishop “can” do, when he “may” do nothing. The SSPX are an even more difficult situation, because they are suspended, rather than defrocked. I don’t have time to elaborate further, so I will leave it here for now.

 

[devoutchristian]

The sacramental priesthood is given for the benefit of the faithful, rather than directly the benefit of the man ordained. As such, the ability to give absolution is for the benefit of those who approach the vagrant bishop.

By that logic SSPX priests could validly absolve.

 

[Latinitas]

The question is whether or not an SSPX bishop can validly absolve sins and ‘perform’ marriages.

Being a bishop means one possesses in himself the fullness of the priesthood. There is nothing that he cannot do, sacramentally. Unlike a priest, who needs the faculties to hear confessions, preside over marriages and administer confirmation, a bishop possesses these in his person by the nature of him being a bishop. Only marriage is suspect, due to divine law, since the bishop does not administer the sacrament himself.

A bishop can have the faculties to hear confessions etc. removed from him, but unlike a priest, it has no effect on their validity.

Marriage is suspect since one of the four requirements for the spouses to be validly sacramentally married is the witness of a person authorized to do so. An SSPX bishop is not authorized to do this; even though he is a bishop, since he himself is not being married, and the spouses administer the sacrament to each other, he is still not an authorized witness.

It would be an error to say that the SSPX’s confessions, confirmations and marriages are absolutely invalid, however. Considering the factual common error which may legitimately exist for someone who does not know, and out of necessity (it is highly unfortunate to say, but we all know that this claim does actually have some merit to it). However, we are prohibited from receiving doubtful sacraments, and thus the SSPX should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

I hope this helps.

Benedicat Deus

 

[LINVS]

Wow, thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. What a complicated issue this has become!

 

[porthos11]

Thank you Crusader for your weekly (name removed by moderator)ut on the SSPX. Which is 100% accurate, and 23 pages of fluff will not change that fact.

See you next week!

Unfortunately, he is not on two points:

1. Summorum Pontificum has NOTHING to do with the SSPX.
2. It requires priests who celebrate the EF to be not juridically impeded (art. 4, sec. 4)

This latter condition is not met by virtue of the SSPX priests’ suspension, which prohibits him from celebrating the Sacraments, which makes the SSPX priest’s Mass illicit.

 

[curlycool89]

The question is whether or not an SSPX bishop can validly absolve sins and ‘perform’ marriages.

Being a bishop means one possesses in himself the fullness of the priesthood. There is nothing that he cannot do, sacramentally. Unlike a priest, who needs the faculties to hear confessions, preside over marriages and administer confirmation, a bishop possesses these in his person by the nature of him being a bishop. Only marriage is suspect, due to divine law, since the bishop does not administer the sacrament himself.

The Sacraments have further requirements, however besides valid clergy: proper jurisdiction.

The SSPX bishops do not possess any jurisdiction whatsoever. It would be odd to say that if they permanently set up shop in Bishop X’s diocese they can just start hearing confessions, because you’d have to apply that type of logic to any valid bishop. This type of argument leads to an absurd and clearly unacceptable conclusion, so there must be some nuance that we’re missing.

Jurisdiction means that you are ministering to your own flock. The bishops of the SSPX have no flock (maybe Bishop Fellay for the SSPX clergy themselves, although whether the SSPX exists/existed as a canonical society at the time of the excommunications/suspensions is still not well understood, so its hard to deliberate if he possesses Ordinary power over the SSPX clergy or not by virtue of being Superior General), and certainly the SSPX has no Ordinary jurisdiction over any laypeople to be able to validly claim them as a part of their “flock”.

That’s why I wondered if anyone knew how Auxiliary Bishops were handled in terms of whether they need faculties, because that would be the example to go by.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)