SSPX Confessions

[jfoges]

Are SSPX confessions valid? That is, do they actually absolve sin? The problem is they aren’t given permission to hear confession by the local ordinary.

 

[MarkThompson]

The Church’s view is that they are not valid. Canon 966 §1 says that, in addition to holy orders, the priest must have faculties, i.e. permission, in order to validly absolve: “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.” Canon 976 creates an exception for penitents “in danger of death.”

The SSPX’s view, of course, is that their absolutions are valid, but it’ s based on various absurd and bad-faith attempts to create and exploit loopholes in canon law. If you read their stuff, the arguments run along the lines if, “Sure, it wouldn’t be valid if the penitent knew that the priest lacked faculties. But behind a confessional screen, you don’t truly know who’s on the other side, wink wink!”

 

[h1478971]

yes they are.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Technically, they’re not valid.

In the whole context of God’s mercy and our need to recognize that every human being in a state of mortal sin is an emergency situation?

There’s grace in it, even if it’s not technically valid.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

The Church’s view is that they are not valid. Canon 966 §1 says that, in addition to holy orders, the priest must have faculties, i.e. permission, in order to validly absolve: “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.” Canon 976 creates an exception for penitents “in danger of death.”

The SSPX’s view, of course, is that their absolutions are valid, but it’ s based on various absurd and bad-faith attempts to create and exploit loopholes in canon law. If you read their stuff, the arguments run along the lines if, “Sure, it wouldn’t be valid if the penitent knew that the priest lacked faculties. But behind a confessional screen, you don’t truly know who’s on the other side, wink wink!”

I don’t think that’s quite accurate or fair Mark. It is not a loophole that needs closed like somebody trying to evade paying taxes that gives priests the faculties to give Sacraments in cases of emergency. Everybody agrees that in danger of physical death any priest may hear a confession without being incardinated into a diocese. This is good law. The question is with regard to whether there is an emergency. There are Traditionalists who believe that the near disappearance of the Traditional Latin Mass creates an emergency environment that places souls in danger of spiritual death.

The Society never suggests that because you aren’t sure who is behind the screen that you may assume it is an incardinated priest. The people who go to SSPX Chapels for the Mass already know that it is an irregular situation. Many of us struggled with the question for a long time, going to Masses that made us upset, before we became convinced that this is an emergency situation.

I think we can resolve the question of whether SSPX confessions are valid by asking if penitents who return from Society chapels are, when known by their confessor, instructed to reconfess any mortal sins they can remember from their previously invalid confessions.

I would suspect that the best way to know what the Church has ruled regarding Society confessions comes from the turbulent period immediately following the consecrations of the four bishops in 1988. At that time as most of us know, there was a large number of Society of St. Pius X priests and seminarians who were compelled to leave the Society and the Society of St. Peter was erected to give a home to these priests and seminarians who could no longer in good conscience continue in the SSPX. Were they required to repeat the confessions of all the mortal sins they could recall because of this alleged invalidity of Society confessions or were they not?

This will answer what the Church’s position is on the matter. I frankly do not know. I would be very interested in knowing the experience and the beliefs of priests of the Society of St. Peter about this question, especially the ones who had experience as seminarians or priests of the SSPX. I am speculating that if “reconfession” was church policy we would have heard about it long ago. Lay Catholics have no business telling Traditionalists who are in SSPX chapels that their confessions are invalid, if upon returning to regualar status with the Church, neither priests, nor seminarians, nor lay people are formally instructed by the Church as to the invalidity of what is in some cases, many years of allegedly bad confessions.

My hunch is that there are those who don’t mind if we are scared into thinking SSPX confessions are invalid in order to keep people from going toward the SSPX. But the real truth comes out, if upon returning, these confessions are assumed to be valid. I think the Church is probably teaching us that a subjective (possibly false) belief in an emergency situation makes for a canonically valid SSPX confession.

 

[Abenadar]

Both sides have their arguments for or against the SSPX in general, and their marriages and confessions in particular etc. John Salza (EWTN and scripturecatholic dot com) isn’t associated with the SSPX but he has argued in favor of the SSPX nevertheless. If anyone wants to read the debate you can probably google it. I think he was debating Jimmy Akin.

If one doesn’t feel they can confess to an SSPX priest, then don’t. It’s that simple. If one does, that is the decision of that person, and it probably wasn’t made lightly. People who do confess to SSPX priests don’t just arbitrarily do so, nor do they merely throw around lines like “there’s a crisis in the church” and talk about emergencies. To these people (including myself), the crisis is REAL and there is an emergency…Just look around. SSPX attendees don’t do it to be controversial, nor do they do it to be “different”, or for fun, or convenience’s sake. Actually, it’s a burden (in several ways), and not convenient to attend an SSPX chapel…yet people do it anyway, which, misguided or not, says something about their deep commitment to the Faith.

God knows each of us, and he will judge us according to his perfect mercy and justice. If people who confess to SSPX priests are truly in error, then we may know that we were justly thrown into hell by our own actions judged by God with infinite mercy and justice.

In the meantime I’m encouraged that the SSPX has had their wish granted with regard to the doctrinal discussions that are currently taking place, and I hope for a good outcome for both parties. I am also encouraged by the fact that the SSPX has been officially vindicated several times in the last few years with regard to many issues which they had continued to correctly argue (“pro multis”, and the not-abrogated status of the TLM, etc.) in the face of (sometimes) blind and belligerent disagreement from people too taken with the ‘spirit’ of reform to believe that the SSPX might actually be making valid points.

 

[whatischarity]

I think the Church is probably teaching us that a subjective (possibly false) belief in an emergency situation makes for a canonically valid SSPX confession.

That is an interesting thought. I understand in concept a Roman Catholic being unable to attend Mass in certain diocesan parishes. However, explain to me why a Roman Catholic could still not go to confession to a diocesan priest or another priest who has faculties from the diocesan bishop.

Here is a tought I have. The individual in the unfortunate situation of not having access to a Mass that they can subjectively tolerate should ever keep in mind that they attend a SSPX Mass because of their subjective belief and they should realize that their goal is always to be attentive to ways to overcome their temporary obstacle and return to a parish in full communion with the diocese and Rome. Their children should be aware of this so they are not confused by being Catholics but not attending services in a church in union with the other churches in the diocese. Of course praying that parishes throughout the diocese will attentively follow the rubrics of the Mass of Pope Paul VI is a good first step. Being heartened by the reintroduction of the EF of the Mass is another development that can give such a one hope that their lamentable situation is temporary. A third step would be conferring with some diocesan priest that they respect and explain how they think and feel in order to gain some further perspective on their dilemma. (Your local parish could very much need more people like you to return to it in order to convince the parish priest to petitoin the local bishop for permission to pray the EF.) A fourth very important step is to be ever on the lookout for exageration or distortion promulgated by a third party who could be biased about the actual beliefs and intentions of the leaders of the Church.

Bottom line: Always remember that you want to be a Roman Catholic and actively strive to discover the means of retaining that goal.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

That is an interesting thought. I understand in concept a Roman Catholic being unable to attend Mass in certain diocesan parishes. However, explain to me why a Roman Catholic could still not go to confession to a diocesan priest or another priest who has faculties from the diocesan bishop.

Here is a tought I have. The individual in the unfortunate situation of not having access to a Mass that they can subjectively tolerate should ever keep in mind that they attend a SSPX Mass because of their subjective belief and they should realize that their goal is always to be attentive to ways to overcome their temporary obstacle and return to a parish in full communion with the diocese and Rome. Their children should be aware of this so they are not confused by being Catholics but not attending services in a church in union with the other churches in the diocese. Of course praying that parishes throughout the diocese will attentively follow the rubrics of the Mass of Pope Paul VI is a good first step. Being heartened by the reintroduction of the EF of the Mass is another development that can give such a one hope that their lamentable situation is temporary. A third step would be conferring with some diocesan priest that they respect and explain how they think and feel in order to gain some further perspective on their dilemma. (Your local parish could very much need more people like you to return to it in order to convince the parish priest to petitoin the local bishop for permission to pray the EF.) A fourth very important step is to be ever on the lookout for exageration or distortion promulgated by a third party who could be biased about the actual beliefs and intentions of the leaders of the Church.

Bottom line: Always remember that you want to be a Roman Catholic and actively strive to discover the means of retaining that goal.

Hi whatischarity.

Bottom Line and everything inbetween is perfect. However, you have obtained a mistaken assumption of the Society position. It is perfectly permissible to go elsewhere for confession than you do for Mass which would ordinarily mean a priest with diocesan faculties. But again, good Catholics should be able to go to a priest that isn’t going to pooh pooh their confession of using birth control. They shouldn’t have to go face to face if they don’t wish. And if they are permitted to go to a Society Mass, they must be permitted confession before receiving Holy Commuinion. So…the emergency to a lesser, but still grave extent applies.

I will go to confession face to face with any priest if I need confession. I have been taught by our Society priest not to doubt the validity of the Sacrament of Confessions by newly ordained priests inasmuch as the form of Holy Orders now resembles very closely one that was used in the first millenium. The good Society priests with whom I am familiar aren’t consumed with a passion to build up a Society kingdom. They are here to help us save our souls. They are not unhappy if one of their parishioners obtains grace in any fashion!

 

[excubitor]

The Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei has flat out ruled that the confessions and marriages of the SSPX are invalid. The authority to forgive sins is apostolic and must come directly from the Pope through his validly ordained bishops. Therefore
this is correctly said in the catholic encyclopedia

Finally, the confession is made not in the secrecy of the penitent’s heart nor to a layman as friend and advocate, nor to a representative of human authority, but to a duly ordained priest with requisite jurisdiction and with the “power of the keys”, i.e., the power to forgive sins which Christ granted to His Church.

The lack of authority means that the SSPX confessor might just as well be your Uncle Jack for all the good it will do to confess your sins to him.

The whole basis for extraordinary jurisdiction seems to me to depend on the person being ignorant of the confessors lack of authority to forgive sins. And yet it would be almost impossible to suppose that the great bulk of SSPX people would not be aware of this issue. I have no doubt that the SSPX priests belt on about extraordinary jurisdiction during their homilies even more than the belt on about the corruptions of Vatican 2.
Therefore the majority of the SSPX rank and file are not ignorant and therefore there is no extraordinary jurisdiction and therefore their is no forgiveness of mortal sin and therefore their valid but illicit sacraments are received sacrilegiously.

Not a very good situation. Quite honestly I would like the Pope and the Church to speak out a bit more strongly on this matter. But if they did it might completely sever the tenuous link with the SSPX leading the whole community to their spiritual deaths. But for me I worry about the minority of SSPX’ers who are not so radical and are on the cusp and who would come back to the church if they heard the truth of their uncanonical status boldy stated by the Pope.

Also, with regards to John Salza. I have the utmost respect for him. But he states that his arguments are his own opinion. Quite frankly we cannot stake our eternal souls on a laymans opinion, no matter how educated and usually correct he might be. I think even John would agree with me and I know that he has certainly deferred to the judgement of the church on this issue.

With that in mind I refer to this letter from the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei which makes the position of the SSPX confessions very clear. latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

 

[whatischarity]

With that in mind I refer to this letter from the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei which makes the position of the SSPX confessions very clear. latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

Your link points out a danger of attending the SSPX Masses is becoming tainted with a schismatic mentality. This to me is the key point. The TLM itself is not the issue but rather the layperson exposing themselves to sermons that at times condemn the mass and sacraments and ministers of the Roman Catholic Church in ways that are either uncharitable, exaggerated, unfounded, or yet proven. (If this doesn’t occur at your SSPX parish then very good.) In the schismatic splinter group that I was unfortunately adrift in for 40 years, they condemned the Mass of Pope Paul VI as heretical and declared all the Popes since Pope John XXIII as heretical. The Roman Catholic Church of course has never made such a declaration so what they were doing was replacing the Church with their own perspective of reality and assuming a role to which they had no right or authority. They said the TLM which was beautiful but it only served to hide the posion.

Make no mistake on my viewpoint that those who attend SSPX are dedicated, committed individuals and for this reason I think they could greatly assist their local parishes reform the excesses that perhaps are the root cause of these divisions. It appears to me Rome shares this view and for this reason is solicitous to not jeopardize their return to the Church by using strongly worded rhetoric. Let us hope and pray for better times.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

The whole basis for extraordinary jurisdiction seems to me to depend on the person being ignorant of the confessors lack of authority to forgive sins. And yet it would be almost impossible to suppose that the great bulk of SSPX people would not be aware of this issue. I have no doubt that the SSPX priests belt on about extraordinary jurisdiction during their homilies even more than the belt on about the corruptions of Vatican 2.

Sigh…

The sermons are ordinarily about the Gospel of the day, or maybe the Epistle, about how to grow and persevere in grace. If we want crisis in the Church stuff we can get it off the internet. I think most of us would be bored with that. We’re already there. We aren’t going to forget why we came. It isn’t some Pentecostal rally either. I have never heard any of them speak in a way that could be justly described as “belting on” about any subject. No two preachers are exactly the same, but the delivery is in no respect different from any I have heard from my many other years going to Novus Ordo Masses.

 

[excubitor]

Sigh…

The sermons are ordinarily about the Gospel of the day, or maybe the Epistle, about how to grow and persevere in grace. If we want crisis in the Church stuff we can get it off the internet. I think most of us would be bored with that. We’re already there. We aren’t going to forget why we came. It isn’t some Pentecostal rally either. I have never heard any of them speak in a way that could be justly described as “belting on” about any subject. No two preachers are exactly the same, but the delivery is in no respect different from any I have heard from my many other years going to Novus Ordo Masses.

I would have thought that if the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei ruled that your confessions and marriages were invalid that would outweigh any crisis that could be imagined.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I would have thought that if the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei ruled that your confessions and marriages were invalid that would outweigh any crisis that could be imagined.

Has the Ecclesia Dei Commission ruled anything about whether there is an emergency situation in the Church? No. Would they be the competent to do so? No. There has always been a misplaced assumption. Any ruling has been grounded in the notion that there can be no emergency in the Church. The Ecclesia Dei Commission was originally created in direct reaction to the consecrations of the bishops by Abp. Lefebvre in 1988. It seems like there could not be an authority less qualified to judge on the matter. Even so, I admit that the members of the Commission seem remarkably tolerant of the Society in light of the original purpose of their mission. Nevertheless, not so tolerant as to concede or consider the question of SSPX Sacraments in light of an “emergency situation” in the Church.

It has taken longer than some of our lifetimes for the Holy See to begin to recognize that there is something seriously deficient in the life of our Holy Mother Church. We now know that there have been siginificant numbers of homosexually active priests all over the world who are so bold as to break their vows of chastity…and the civil law drawing attention to themselves as criminals. Does it not seem reasonable that there must be many more who commit one of the sins which according to the Church, “cries to heaven for vengeance”, with consenting adults, not breaking civil laws but showing their disdain for the teaching of the Church?

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI seems so burdened down with the persecution this has drawn upon him from enemies of the Church all over the world. But what is piercing his soul, is the knowledge that the most damaging blows that can be dealt to the Church comes from enemies within. Just last Thursday, on the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima, the pope was asked, "Holiness, what significance do the apparitions of Fatima have for us today? And when you presented the text of the Third Secret, in the Vatican Press Office, in June 2000, it was asked of you whether the Message could be extended, beyond the attack on John Paul II, also to the other sufferings of the Pope. Is it possible, according to you, to frame also in that vision the sufferings of the Church of today for the sins of the sexual abuse of minors?" His answer reveals that not only does he hold that the third secret of Fatima speaks to continuing consequences for the Church today, but that there is a “really terrifying” situation that has arisen because of sin in the Church: "As for the novelty that we can discover today in this message, it is that attacks on the Pope and the Church do not come only from outside, but the sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from sins that exist in the Church. This has always been known, but today we see it in a really terrifying way: that the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from enemies outside, but arises from sin in the Church."

I see my pope beleaguered and surrounded by wolves who are “within the doors”, and who resist the Tradition and teachings of the Church because it condemns their sins. It tells me that today, when a “really terrifying” persecution of the Church has arisen from enemies not on the outside, those same enemies are incompetent to stand in judgment against the Society of St. Pius X. Until now, there has been a burying of the head in the sand, pretending that everything is well. Most conservative Catholics, including myself, can remember waiting for the promised “new springtime” that the ever optimistic Pope John Paul predicted. Who would consider something so contrary to the new springtime as an “emergency in the Church” in such an atmosphere of hope?

The detractors of the Society insist that they are in schism until it comes to the question of the validity of marriages. Then they recognize that the Society is Catholic, otherwise, like Protestants, the marriages they witness would be valid. This inconsistent, desperate pattern of smearing the Society as schismatic until it would be advantageous to be so, has to be in my opinion, symptomatic of the “really terrifying” persecution of which the Holy Father spoke. When the Church cannot recognize Her own faithful children, when she is tender and forgiving and solicitous for Muslims and Jews and Protestants, but shuns Her very own like outcasts and villains, I believe there is an emergency in the Church. That is why I have with faith in a God of mercy, taken refuge among other like-minded souls who have taken the desperate and temporary measure of receiving the Sacraments from a priest without ordinary jurisdiction.

Maybe I shouldn’t have written such a long post, but I am trying to show why in my deepest heart, I love the Roman Catholic Church, and the vicar of Christ who leads us. I could be wrong, but I think that other than the pope himself, there is no one competent, and certainly not the Ecclesia Dei Commission, to judge the matter of whether there is an emergency in the Church. In this day, in this “really terrifying persecution” we have to make our own choices as to whether there is an emergency that justifies extraordinary measures. I believe I am more in communion with Pope Benedict XVI, sharing in his persecutions, assisting at SSPX Masses and receiving the Sacraments than I have ever been. You are asking me to believe that for this my confessed sins and those of my children are unforgiven even when the law of the Church excuses me if I perceive an emergency? I cannot believe you.

Viva il Papa.

Rory

 

[Abenadar]

Excellent, Rory! Lots of great points brought up.