SSPX Confession

  • Thread starter Thread starter twiztedseraph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

twiztedseraph

Guest
Under what circumstances would confession with an SSPX Priest be valid?
 
If you were in danger of imminent death and confession by a SSPX priest were the only available option. Other than that, the SSPX priest is has no authority to forgive your sins, so your confession would be invalid.
 
40.png
Ham1:
If you were in danger of imminent death and confession by a SSPX priest were the only available option. Other than that, the SSPX priest is has no authority to forgive your sins, so your confession would be invalid.
Click to expand...
How would it be invalid?? Do you mean illicit?
 
40.png
SummaTheo:
How would it be invalid?? Do you mean illicit?
Click to expand...
Priests’ power to forgive sins is not inherent in their ordination but is granted as faculties from thier ordinary. This also technically applies only to the jurisdiction of that bishop, so if a priest were visiting a different diocese he would have to request faculties from the local ordinary in order to absolve sins in that territory.

The controversy surrounding the SSPX and other groups with “less than normal” relations with Rome is that, as SSPX priests serve excommunicated bishops and thus operate outside the authority structure of the Catholic Church, they have not received faculties from a bishop with the authority to grant them.
 
40.png
EddieArent:
Show me a statement from the Vatican stating that SSPX or the priests of Campus prior to their “deal” that Confessions are/were invalid. None exist!

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q9_jurisdiction.htm
Click to expand...
How shocking! Excommunicated priests who are leading others away from Christ’s Church believe that they can warp the word of Canon Law in order help their cause? Sorry, but the case they make here is quite weak. The sections listed from canon law are specific and not a starting point for developing a grand theory of a jurisdiction granted because someone doesn’t “feel” comfortable with any other priests.

As for a statement from the Vatican, there probably isn’t one. But then again, there isn’t a specific Vatican statement on Catholics for Free Choice or NAMBLA either.
 
40.png
EddieArent:
Show me a statement from the Vatican stating that SSPX or the priests of Campus prior to their “deal” that Confessions are/were invalid. None exist!

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q9_jurisdiction.htm
Click to expand...
I’m sure the original poster meant to use the word “illicit,” rather than “invalid.” As for your link, you do a grave disservice to the Church by posting schismatic links. I would prayerfully reconsider such actions, if I were you. Surely you don’t wish to be the cause for others stumbling? Of course, the SSPX says their sacraments are licit. What would one expect them to say? The fact remains that they aren’t licit. Valid, yes, licit, no.
 
Actually, it is indeed invalid. Andreas Hofer quite clearly described it in his post above. The power to forgive sins is different from say the power to confect the Eucharist as it is a power granted by the local ordinary. So, the absolution offered by an excommunicated priest is truly invalid and the penitent’s sins are not forgiven. The Eucharist confected by the SSPX priest is valid and illicit but absolution by that same priest is invalid.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I’m sure the original poster meant to use the word “illicit,” rather than “invalid.” As for your link, you do a grave disservice to the Church by posting schismatic links. I would prayerfully reconsider such actions, if I were you. Surely you don’t wish to be the cause for others stumbling? Of course, the SSPX says their sacraments are licit. What would one expect them to say? The fact remains that they aren’t licit. Valid, yes, licit, no.
Click to expand...
Actually Kirk, the sacraments of marriage and confessions (unless in danger of death or no other available priest as said above) are* invalid* due to the lack of faculties as Adreas stated.

Here’s Msgr. Perl’s statement on the matter:
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).
Click to expand...
latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

The faithful must be ignorant of the fact that the Vatican has pronounced the SSPX to be in schism. They can’t just not agree with this pronouncement.

Now, before anyone asks, when Campos returned their marriages and confessions were sanated. This is a canonical term to say that they have now been made valid. Sanation is a long standing tradition to deal with mass returns to communion with the Church. I, believe, however, that with the sacrament of confession they must make one more confession to “seal the deal”.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
I’m sure the original poster meant to use the word “illicit,” rather than “invalid.” As for your link, you do a grave disservice to the Church by posting schismatic links. I would prayerfully reconsider such actions, if I were you. Surely you don’t wish to be the cause for others stumbling? Of course, the SSPX says their sacraments are licit. What would one expect them to say? The fact remains that they aren’t licit. Valid, yes, licit, no.
Click to expand...
I believe heis correct in his statement that the SSPX Confessions would be invalid. Jimmy Akins goes to great lengths to explain this fact at his website.

The New Advent website also has great links regarding the Sacrament of Penance and Faculties for Penance.
For valid administration, a twofold power is necessary: the power of order and the power of jurisdiction. The former is conferred by ordination, the latter by ecclesiastical authority. At his ordination a priest receives the power to consecrate the Holy Eucharist, and for valid consecration he needs no jurisdiction. As regards penance, the case is different: “because the nature and character of a judgment requires that sentence be pronounced only on those who are subjects (of the judge) the Church of God has always held, and this Council affirms it to be most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has not either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, is of no effect” (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 7). Ordinary jurisdiction is that which one has by reason of his office as involving the care of souls; the pope has it over the whole Church, the bishop within his diocese, the pastor within his parish. Delegated jurisdiction is that which is granted by an ecclesiastical superior to one who does not possess it by virtue of his office. The need of jurisdiction for administering this sacrament is usually expressed by saying that a priest must have “faculties” to hear confession (see FACULTIES). Hence it is that a priest visiting in a diocese other than his own cannot hear confession without special authorization from the bishop. Every priest, however, can absolve anyone who is at the point of death, because under those circumstances the Church gives all priests jurisdiction. As the bishop grants jurisdiction, he can also limit it by “reserving” certain cases (see RESERVATION) and he can even withdraw it entirely. (emphasis added)
Click to expand...
cf. Code of Canon Law, no. 966.1
 
BTW, Eddie, this letter from Msgr. Perl precedes the Campos return so they would also be covered under this.
 
WOW, I hadn’t realized the bit about confession/marriages being invalid. Thanks for the good info!
 
So, here’s a question. Do the jurisdictional limits apply to the laity? Can we validly go to confession outside our Parish or Diocese? I previously assumed Yes, but after reading the code, I’m wondering.

I assume jurisdiction would automatically transfer for things like retreats and if you’re involved with an Order and are outside your Parish / Diocese but confessing within the Order.

But if a person simply wants to avoid being embarassed with their pastor and goes to the neighboring parish / diocese, does that priest have the necessary authority over you, as you do not belong to his flock?

CARose
 
40.png
CARose:
So, here’s a question. Do the jurisdictional limits apply to the laity? Can we validly go to confession outside our Parish or Diocese? I previously assumed Yes, but after reading the code, I’m wondering.

I assume jurisdiction would automatically transfer for things like retreats and if you’re involved with an Order and are outside your Parish / Diocese but confessing within the Order.

But if a person simply wants to avoid being embarassed with their pastor and goes to the neighboring parish / diocese, does that priest have the necessary authority over you, as you do not belong to his flock?

CARose
Click to expand...
No, the jurisdictions do not apply to the laity in terms of where they may receive the sacrament of Penance. I believe, however, that Canon law may require that the parties be married in their own parish (and if they ar form two different parishes, I suspect there is a means of determining which prish has authority), and they may do otherwise with the permission of the bishop.
 
We’ve already discussed the fact that the sacraments of matrimony and reconciliation require faculties for validity, while the Eucharist does not.

What about the other four sacraments?

And, are these rules universal, or do they apply only to the Latin Church?
 
40.png
Digitonomy:
We’ve already discussed the fact that the sacraments of matrimony and reconciliation require faculties for validity, while the Eucharist does not.

What about the other four sacraments?

And, are these rules universal, or do they apply only to the Latin Church?
Click to expand...
No, the other 4 sacraments do not require faculties. In fact, one doesn’t even require a priest - baptism in cases where there is danger of death. In the SSPX, these sacraments are valid but are performed illicitly says the Church.

Here are some excerpts (sorry, don’t know where you can find the full letter) from the Congregation of Bishops.

latin-mass.org/pontifical.html

I’m just guessing but I’d have to say that even in the universal Church one would have to have faculties from the local bishop of their rite but this is only a guess.
 
40.png
bear06:
No, the other 4 sacraments do not require faculties. In fact, one doesn’t even require a priest - baptism in cases where there is danger of death. In the SSPX, these sacraments are valid but are performed illicitly says the Church.
Click to expand...
I believe that Holy Orders does require faculties. Ordiantion without the approval of the Church, while valid but illicit, results in the excommunication of both parties involved.

I also wonder about Confirmation in the Western Church, as it is only properly done by the bishop who has jurisdiction or by those he has delegated it to. As the SSPX bishop has no jurisdiction and the SSPX priests have not be delegated to, is it valid?
 
Sir Knight:
What’s the difference? :confused:
Click to expand...
I’m not going to explain this well, you need Itsjustdave or OTM or somebody, BUT:

Valid means that the sacrament is operative, effective, sufficient. It does what it purports to do. Our Mass is a valid confection of the Holy Sacrifice, as is the Mass celebrated by the SSPX.

Licit has to do with the sacraments’ lawful and proper offering. In order to be licitly celebrated/performed/offered, it has to be done in union with/by permission of the legitimate authority, ie, the Holy See and/or the local ordinary. The Mass of the SSPX is not, therefore, licit.

(I think?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top