SSPX Mass and their Sacraments

[Cid]

On reading a Catholic Truth Society booklet entitled “Catholic Traditionalism” and its chapter on “Schismatics and Other Irregular Groups” (p 56,57) it was stated by the author Dr Raymond Edwards, that under certain extreme conditions attending a SSPX’s schismatic Mass would fulfill the Sunday obligation:
“if there is no easily accessible non-schismatic alternative, either in the older or newer form of the Rite; nor, if one does attend a schismatic Mass (for a baptism or similar occasion, for instance) should one receive Communion.”
Later in describing some of the canonical penalies incurred by the SSPX the author describes those SSPX sacraments which are not valid which are confession and marriage.
I recommend this booklet because it deals with an important topic and one which more Catholics need to be better informed about.

 

[ProVobis]

No formal schism between the SSPX and the Church. Internal matter between the SSPX and Rome. No mortal sin incurred by attending SSPX Mass or receiving communion. Fulfills Sunday obligation (per Canon Law) but it is not recommended to attend there every Sunday.

 

[BennyBoy89]

Cardinal Hoyos, the President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has stated that a Catholic that receives the sacraments from the SSPX incurs no penalty of sin or excommunication.

 

[Timothysis]

Cardinal Hoyos, the President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has stated that a Catholic that receives the sacraments from the SSPX incurs no penalty of sin or excommunication.

That is a far cry from saying that it is “ok” to attend at a sspx chapel on a regular basis. Many of a more learned opinion of mine and others here say that:

• receiving communion at a sspx chapel implies a oneness of faith that does not exist.
• sspx priest are suspended from their faculties, which means that any mass celebrated by them is illicit, which means “illegal” or “not allowed” under Canon Law. Many here gloss over this little detail.
• they do not have the faculties to hear confessions, ALTHOUGH, the Church, in her generosity, grants enormous latitude here for those who are not aware of the status of sspx priests. Those who do know the status and the problems involved are not absolved of their sins if confessed to a sspx priest.
• their lack of faculties invalidates any marriages celebrated by them. This should be a biggie.
• the excommunications of the sspx bishops is a totally separate issue from the canonical status of the sspx. Some here try to maintain that Pope John Paul II’s excommunications were “invalid” because of exceptions in Canon law. What they don’t tell you is that the supreme legislator of Canon law ruled that those exceptions “do not apply in this case.” The bishops were excommunicated for their disobedience in consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. This one is cut and dry. I, personally, would be greatly surprised if Pope Benedict XVI removed the excommunications, since, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he was in the middle of the negotiations with the sspx and knows exactly the state of the issues at hand.
• finally, I find it odd that so many here who describe themselves as “Traditionalists” would be so supportive of a group who has been in such conflict with the Church all of these years. The fact that their Masses are illicit should be enough to keep good, faithful Catholics from attending. Cardinal Hoyos’ words have been twisted in many different ways to say that it is “ok” to attend sspx chapels. From what I have read, his responses were to individual questions and circumstances as posed by faithful Catholics, not as a general statement to all of the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

• sspx priest are suspended from their faculties, which means that any mass celebrated by them is illicit, which means “illegal” or “not allowed” under Canon Law. Many here gloss over this little detail.

Yet Rome has “conceded” that their bishops follow Apostolic Succession and their ordinations are valid. So what do they expect them to do, never say Mass, one of their foremost duties?

• they do not have the faculties to hear confessions,

They lack the faculties because the local bishop does not grant them the faculties (and probably wouldn’t even if they return to the fold.) Extra diocesan and independent priests follow the same rules.

• their lack of faculties invalidates any marriages celebrated by them.

And they’re also powerless to grant annulments.

• the excommunications of the sspx bishops is a totally separate issue from the canonical status of the sspx. Some here try to maintain that Pope John Paul II’s excommunications were “invalid” because of exceptions in Canon law. What they don’t tell you is that the supreme legislator of Canon law ruled that those exceptions “do not apply in this case.”

Then the Pope has contradicted himself as he approved the Canons which mitigate the action. Ask yourself, what was the purpose of this “necessity” Canon Law anyway and when exactly does it apply? What “necessity” were they talking about if not about keeping the faith? What other bishops were ordaining priests to say the Latin Mass back then?

• finally, I find it odd that so many here who describe themselves as “Traditionalists” would be so supportive of a group who has been in such conflict with the Church all of these years.

I’m no traditionalist, in fact, I hardly ever talk to any of them. Yet I do attend the SSPX Masses (infrequently) as the chapel is very reverent, prayerful, no nonsense, quiet, and I can hear the priest.

 

[Timothysis]

Yet Rome has “conceded” that their bishops follow Apostolic Succession and their ordinations are valid. So what do they expect them to do, never say Mass, one of their foremost duties?

They have been suspended of their faculties for saying Mass, hence the reason for the “illicitness” of their Masses; that means that their Masses are “illegal,” or “not allowed” by Canon law. What is so hard to understand about that???

They lack the faculties because the local bishop does not grant them the faculties (and probably wouldn’t even if they return to the fold.) Extra diocesan and independent priests follow the same rules.

And why do they lack the faculties? Because they were SUSPENDED by the Pope!!!

And they’re also powerless to grant annulments.

No argument here.

Then the Pope has contradicted himself as he approved the Canons which mitigate the action. Ask yourself, what was the purpose of this “necessity” Canon Law anyway and when exactly does it apply? What “necessity” were they talking about if not about keeping the faith? What other bishops were ordaining priests to say the Latin Mass back then?

And here we go again…(sigh)… the “Canons which mitigate the action” were ruled to not apply to the situation of the Archbishop. You can turn over every conspiracy theory you want in your head but it doesn’t change the fact that the Supreme Legislator of Canon Law (appointed by the Pope, no less) declared that the canon in question did not apply. The “necessity” you mention must be an “objective” necessity, not subjective. A good example would be the Church in China. Twist it as you want, the Archbishop and those he ordained are guilty of disobedience.

I’m no traditionalist, in fact, I hardly ever talk to any of them. Yet I do attend the SSPX Masses (infrequently) as the chapel is very reverent, prayerful, no nonsense, quiet, and I can hear the priest.

So that just means that you have a horse in the race. Me? I side with the Church and the Holy Father.

And by the way, how can you “hear the priest” when the Canon of the Latin Mass is silent??? Is this some kind of abuse???

 

[ProVobis]

A good example would be the Church in China.

So the faith is more important in China than it is, say, France?

In France, the SSPX is all they have of the faith. But all you’ve been taught is “obedience”. Obedience to what or to whom? Who’s telling you that you must go to poorly celebrated liturgies?

And by the way, how can you “hear the priest” when the Canon of the Latin Mass is silent??? Is this some kind of abuse???

Actually, the Canon is supposed to be said in a “low tone”. The servers should be able to hear it. And who would go to a completely “silent” Mass? Besides, the Canon is only part of the Mass, no?

 

[DavidPalm]

I think the correct position, as others here have stated, is that the Mass is indeed valid and fulfills your Sunday obligation, but that the sacraments of marriage and confession are invalid due to SSPX’s lack of jurisdiction (per the Council of Trent). I know that the SSPX puts forward an elaborate argument of “supplied jurisdiction”, but the contortions will make your head hurt and, in the end, you have to decide if you really want to bet your soul on such arguments.

I used to be very sympathetic to the SSPX, but that sympathy has been draining away in the last few years. Still, there are places, like France, where your only practical choices really are an assortment of apostate diocesan priests or the local SSPX. There it would difficult to argue that one should have nothing to do with them–unless you were close to an ICRSS or FSSP parish, of course, since those fraternity of priests are in good canonical standing and have the necessary jurisdiction, in which case I think it’s impossible to justify regular attendance at the SSPX.

 

[Timothysis]

So the faith is more important in China than it is, say, France?

The Church in China is an underground Church, susceptible to horrendous persecution. The opportunity may present itself when bishops need to be ordained for the sake of the faith and it is not possible to pursue proper channels through the Vatican and the Pope. This would be considered an “objective” danger, not one Frenchman’s paranoia or over active imagination. I do not recall hearing of the martyrdom of a French cleric in recent years but this is a day to day threat faced by the Chinese Church.

If you cannot see the difference then I cannot supply for your deficiencies. Something in your posts speaks of a dishonesty to me…perhaps I am wrong but it seems to go hand in hand with the twisted logic that always presents the sspx in a better light than they deserve. As I said before, if their Masses are not even legal under Canon law, then that should be enough for good, faithful Catholics to avoid them. What you do, however, is your own business.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

The Church in China is an underground Church, susceptible to horrendous persecution. The opportunity may present itself when bishops need to be ordained for the sake of the faith and it is not possible to pursue proper channels through the Vatican and the Pope. This would be considered an “objective” danger, not one Frenchman’s paranoia or over active imagination. I do not recall hearing of the martyrdom of a French cleric in recent years but this is a day to day threat faced by the Chinese Church.

If you cannot see the difference then I cannot supply for your deficiencies. Something in your posts speaks of a dishonesty to me…perhaps I am wrong but it seems to go hand in hand with the twisted logic that always presents the sspx in a better light than they deserve. As I said before, if their Masses are not even legal under Canon law, then that should be enough for good, faithful Catholics to avoid them. What you do, however, is your own business.

I agree that there are differences between the underground Church in China and the SSPX, but I wonder what the difference is between the bishops of state Catholic church and Abp. Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated. The last time I checked, there had been about 170 self-elected and self-ordained bishops in China since the rise of the Communist Party there. However, as far as I know, and someone may be able to correct me here, there have been no excommunications or any declarations that the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, the Chinese state Catholic church, is schismatic.

This really bothers me because, until recently, the CCPA had absolutely no credibility and the repeated consecrations of its bishops were in almost every way worse than the consecrations performed by Abp. Lefebvre, no matter how bad anyone thought those were. I truly wonder why the forgiveness and leeway given to the CCPA time and time again in the hope of a future reconciliation were apparently not given to Abp. Lefebvre and his followers.

 

[Timothysis]

GodIsSalvation,

I think that the Holy See has to be very, very careful and patient in dealing with the “Official Catholic Church of China.” If they show hostility to it, the repercussions of it could be an enormous persecution of the underground Church. Though there are certainly problems to be dealt with, it may be the opinion of those in Rome that it is best to leave the sleeping dragon alone for now. I mean, really, what can the Pope do against a communist regime???

 

[Kielbasi]

• sspx priest are suspended from their faculties, which means that any mass celebrated by them is illicit, which means “illegal” or “not allowed” under Canon Law. Many here gloss over this little detail.

• they do not have the faculties to hear confessions, ALTHOUGH, the Church, in her generosity, grants enormous latitude here for those who are not aware of the status of sspx priests. Those who do know the status and the problems involved are not absolved of their sins if confessed to a sspx priest.

• their lack of faculties invalidates any marriages celebrated by them. This should be a biggie.

A followup or two to this:

The SSPX has been around for more that a quarter century. Are converts from the non-catholic world that entered the sspx and those who were born into the movement still subject to canon law in regards to licitness of confession or marriage?

Can an sspx priest really be “suspended” if he was never licitly ordained in the first place? A never licensed driver can’t have his nonexistant license suspended, or can he?

 

[Timothysis]

A followup or two to this:

The SSPX has been around for more that a quarter century. Are converts from the non-catholic world that entered the sspx and those who were born into the movement still subject to canon law in regards to licitness of confession or marriage?

Can an sspx priest really be “suspended” if he was never licitly ordained in the first place? A never licensed driver can’t have his nonexistant license suspended, or can he?

Good questions. The fact is that the sspx lacks the proper faculties to hear confessions or witness marriage. In my opinion (take it for what it is worth), I would say that, since the confession or marriage would be objectively invalid (due to the suspension of faculties), then yes, I would think that converts would still be held subject to canon law, though their degree of culpability may be diminished due to ignorance. One becomes a member of the Catholic Church, not the sspx.

Regarding number 2, even though an sspx priest is illicitly ordained, it doesn’t make his ordination invalid. He is a catholic priest, though his ordination was illicit. By virtue of Pope John Paul II, however, “all” priests of the sspx are suspended from their faculties, so any Mass celebrated by an sspx priest is “illicit,” meaning “not allowed” under Canon law. As I said before, this little fact seems to be quietly ignored by so many who claim to be good, obedient Catholics.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

GodIsSalvation,

I think that the Holy See has to be very, very careful and patient in dealing with the “Official Catholic Church of China.” If they show hostility to it, the repercussions of it could be an enormous persecution of the underground Church. Though there are certainly problems to be dealt with, it may be the opinion of those in Rome that it is best to leave the sleeping dragon alone for now. I mean, really, what can the Pope do against a communist regime???

I’m not sure what more persecution China could have committed toward the true Catholic clergy in the past; after all, it is pretty hard to top the imprisonment and killing of underground bishops and priests for no other reason than that they refused to hold their allegiance to communist government higher than their allegiance to God. By many accounts, this is still occurring even though Rome has recognized many state-approved and -sponsored bishops.

In the end, though I understand the technical reasons, I cannot legitimately see how the masses and sacraments of the illicitly self-consecrated bishops of the CCPA and their priests are technically licit and valid (at least as I understand the situation) but sacraments and masses of the SSPX are not so.

 

[nmoerbeek]

Good questions. The fact is that the sspx lacks the proper faculties to hear confessions or witness marriage. In my opinion (take it for what it is worth), I would say that, since the confession or marriage would be objectively invalid (due to the suspension of faculties), then yes, I would think that converts would still be held subject to canon law, though their degree of culpability may be diminished due to ignorance. One becomes a member of the Catholic Church, not the sspx.

Regarding number 2, even though an sspx priest is illicitly ordained, it doesn’t make his ordination invalid. He is a catholic priest, though his ordination was illicit. By virtue of Pope John Paul II, however, “all” priests of the sspx are suspended from their faculties, so any Mass celebrated by an sspx priest is “illicit,” meaning “not allowed” under Canon law. As I said before, this little fact seems to be quietly ignored by so many who claim to be good, obedient Catholics.

Tim I believe you are incorrect about the masses not being allowed. If your own conscience will not allow it though I would encourage you not to attend.

Here is a link to a conversation with
His Eminence
Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos
President, Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED)

But it states that it is okay for the faithful to attend their masses.

 

[DavidPalm]

In the end, though I understand the technical reasons, I cannot legitimately see how the masses and sacraments of the illicitly self-consecrated bishops of the CCPA and their priests are technically licit and valid (at least as I understand the situation) but sacraments and masses of the SSPX are not so.

There are three categories of bishops in China: those consecrated clandestinely who have always been in full communion with the Holy See, those consecrated without a papal mandate but who subsequently asked for normalization, and those who had neither mandate nor have been recognized by the Pope. In the Holy Father’s most recent letter to China he makes clear that the bishops consecrated without a papal mandate and no subsequent recognition do indeed exercise their ministry validly, but illicitly:

Finally, there are certain Bishops–a very small number of them–who have been ordained without the Pontifical mandate and who have not asked for or have not yet obtained, the necessary legitimation. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, they are to be considered illegitimate, but validly ordained, as long as it is certain that they have received ordination from validly ordained Bishops and that the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination has been respected. Therefore, although not in communion with the Pope, they exercise their ministry validly in the administration of the sacraments, even if they do so illegitimately. What great spiritual enrichment would ensue for the Church in China if, the necessary conditions having been established, these Pastors too were to enter into communion with the Successor of Peter and with the entire Catholic episcopate! Not only would their episcopal ministry be legitimized, there would also be an enrichment of their communion with the priests and the faithful who consider the Church in China part of the Catholic Church, united with the Bishop of Rome and with all the other particular Churches spread throughout the world.

The entire letter may be seen here:

cardinalkungfoundation.org/Vatican2007/BenedictXVI-2007-5-30-Text-English.htm

And, as with the SSPX, the Holy Father has told the faithful in China that they may receive the sacraments from the CPA priests and bishops, as long as in doing so they do not intend to separate themselves from the communion of the Pope. So at least there is that consistency. I hope it can console you somewhat.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

There are three categories of bishops in China: those consecrated clandestinely who have always been in full communion with the Holy See, those consecrated without a papal mandate but who subsequently asked for normalization, and those who had neither mandate nor have been recognized by the Pope. In the Holy Father’s most recent letter to China he makes clear that the bishops consecrated without a papal mandate and no subsequent recognition do indeed exercise their ministry validly, but illicitly:

The entire letter may be seen here:

cardinalkungfoundation.org/Vatican2007/BenedictXVI-2007-5-30-Text-English.htm

And, as with the SSPX, the Holy Father has told the faithful in China that they may receive the sacraments from the CPA priests and bishops, as long as in doing so they do not intend to separate themselves from the communion of the Pope. So at least there is that consistency. I hope it can console you somewhat.

I apologize, but after rereading my last post, I realize my concern was very vaguely stated. My concern was not that non-recognized Chinese bishops are being treated differently than the SSPX bishops as I understand that they are technically in similar “irregular” states. My real question is why are the bishops and priests of the SSPX still in a position like the third category of bishops in China and not the second. In other words, after the SSPX has repeatedly requested to be in full communion with Rome and shown their willingness to be in full communion, like all of the previously unrecognized Chinese bishops, why haven’t they been recognized and supplied jurisdiction? Why the different treatment for the same infraction? All the Chinese bishops had to do, as far as I can tell, was to ask for recognition and all that did were eventually recognized by Rome. If both groups were lacking legitimacy and jurisdiction for the same technical reason, why have the bishops of the CCPA been welcomed back with seemingly open arms while the SSPX is still in an “irregular state”?

 

[maurin]

I apologize, but after rereading my last post, I realize my concern was very vaguely stated. My concern was not that non-recognized Chinese bishops are being treated differently than the SSPX bishops as I understand that they are technically in similar “irregular” states. My real question is why are the bishops and priests of the SSPX still in a position like the third category of bishops in China and not the second. In other words, after the SSPX has repeatedly requested to be in full communion with Rome and shown their willingness to be in full communion, like all of the previously unrecognized Chinese bishops, why haven’t they been recognized and supplied jurisdiction? Why the different treatment for the same infraction? All the Chinese bishops had to do, as far as I can tell, was to ask for recognition and all that did were eventually recognized by Rome. If both groups were lacking legitimacy and jurisdiction for the same technical reason, why have the bishops of the CCPA been welcomed back with seemingly open arms while the SSPX is still in an “irregular state”?

Since the hijacking of the Council by the liberal-modernists and the interpretation of its documents according to the false spirit of vatican ii , the “emperor has no clothes” and the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre were “the little boy” who wasn’t afraid to say it.

That’s why.

 

[Cid]

In reply to the last comment, I would like to affirm the Catholic faith that Christ is with His Church until the end of the world. The Second Vatican Council was a wonderful manifestation of the Holy Spirit preparing the Church to reach out to modern man, through among other things its updated liturgy, which has made the Mass more assessible for all Catholics.

 

[Aramis]

In reply to the last comment, I would like to affirm the Catholic faith that Christ is with His Church until the end of the world. The Second Vatican Council was a wonderful manifestation of the Holy Spirit preparing the Church to reach out to modern man, through among other things its updated liturgy, which has made the Mass more assessible for all Catholics.

Actually, the council only directed a few changes:

1. reading the canon louder, so that the faithful might hear most of it, and
2. use of the vernacular outside the eastern churches, so that the people might understand what they hear better, but not to the exclusion of latin.
3. it called for an examination of the liturgy and especially the lectionary.

It permitted as well versus populem masses, concelebration without bishops, and deleted the order of subdeacon from the Roman Church, but not the Eastern Churches.