SSPX mass OK?

  • Thread starter Thread starter marci
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
saskatoon said:
to respond to the previous post regarding confession, the validity of the mass has nothing to do with the validity of confession, the validity of confession lies on the priest hearing the confession. An ordained priest has the abiltiy to hear and absolve sins that have been confessed.
Click to expand...
Actually that does not appear to be correct according to Canon law. A priest must also have faculties, which are given to him by the bishop. And since the SSPX priests do not receive faculties from the local bishop (I am unaware of any bishop in the US giving such to SSPX priests), they do not have the faculties to do so within that diocese in which they reside. And the SSPX bishops cannot provide this: Benedict 16 has said so himself (see, Papal Letter Concerining the Lifting of the SSPX Excommunication, 10 March 2009: " As long as the Society does not have canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministires in the Church.").

Thus it applies to Reconcilliation, and also to marriage. According to the Roman rite, the priest is the official witness of a marriage, and a marriage is not sacramental if not witnessed offically by a priest or unless the local bishop has specifically given permission to the couple otherwise (e.g to be witnessed by a Lutheran minister, e.g.). Again, being the official witness is under the jurisdiction of the local bishop, and given they have not permitted the SSPX to operate canonically - by giving them faculties - then they cannot serve as that offical witness. Additionally, the State has to recognize an individual as having the power, according to the State, to officate at a mariage, and unless the SSPX have gone to the State to be so certified, the marriage may not even be recognized by the State.
 
As far as Mass, the mass is valid; provided you are not going out of schismatic intent, you benefit from the sacrament.

The priest, however, commits a grave sin (which means it might be a mortal sin, depending upon his state of mind) by saying the Mass when suspended ad divinis.
Anyone may baptise validly.

They are not permitted to chrismate/confirm (for the west, that requires ordinary jurisdiction or the ordinary’s explicit permission; for the east, faculties from the ordinary), nor perform marriages (that requires faculties from the local ordinary), nor hear confessions except in immanent threat of death (again, faculties from local ordinary), nor ordain (the man being ordained and the bishop ordaining must have permission from the man’s ordinary and the ordinary into whose diocese or ordinariate he will enter.).
 
Pope Benedict XVI has said clearly and unambiguously on two separate occasions this year alone that SSPX clergy exercise NO LEGITIMATE MINISTRY in the Catholic Church.

Several other sources have said that since the Sacraments of Marriage and Confession require jurisdiction, which they lack, that these sacraments are NOT valid.

The others they celebrate are ILLICIT.
 
Lamentabili said:
The analysis on this thread completely ignores supplied jurisdiction.

Lawyer and apologist John Salza who has appeared on EWTN and Relevant Radio responds to James Akin on this very issue here:

catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxconfessions.pdf
Click to expand...
Given that Mr. Sungenis is lurking in the background of this, I would rather hear from someone such as Dr. Ed Peters on the issue.

The bottom line is that the SSPX has been using the line of “Necessity”, and the Church has held that it was not necessary - starting with the ordination of the bishops and flowing out of that. The SSPX continue to argue “necessity” in part due to the fact that they are confronted with being in legitimate dioceses, no faculties being given them, and therefore, rather than dierecting the laity who follow them to go to the priests in the diocese who are granted faculty, they continue the stew by telling the congregations gathered around them that “necessity” provides what is needed.

In short, the issue of “necessity” and the legitimacy of the arguments have been going on since the bishops were ordained over the direct order by JP 2 to not do so. I remain to be convinced. So, apparently, does Rome.
 
michaeldaniels said:
If you attend their Mass for your love for the TLM and not in support of schism, then it is perfectfly fine…don’t listen to anyone that tells you it is sinful. I am hoping and praying for the day this entire matter is resolved and they are brought fully back into the Church…then we shoud go after those that are really damaging the faith, such as rogue priest and Bishops ordaining women, etc.
Click to expand...
Quote: “.then we should go after those that are really damaging the faith, such as rogue priest and Bishops ordaining women”

Well their not doing that. Notre Dame is a perfect example!.
 
I’m not sure what you have against Robert Sungenis but the argument is put forward by Salza, not Sungenis. In addition, if you read the argument you will see that it is not based on necessity at all. The necessity argument had to do with the excommunication issue which is now moot.
 
Lamentabili said:
The analysis on this thread completely ignores supplied jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
If one wants to bank their forgiveness on a loophole… The purpose of supplied jurisdiction was for those who confess in good faith to a someone they believe has jurisdition. It was not intended for a day in and day out circumvention of the authority of the Bishop. Still, as with all legal matters, there will be a few sympathetic to the SSPX that will defended this supplied jurisdiction as a way of avoiding the lack of faculties for the SSPX. The problem is, that the arguments they make, if true, would undermine all jurisdiction given in Canon Law, if applied equally everywhere.

For some Catholic unaware of the SSPX, as many are, who happens into confession, then it would surely apply.
 
pnewton,

It is not a loophole, but a standing provision of Canon Law. Salza explains it very well in the article I linked to. The first rule of Canon Law is the salvation of souls. The penitent is not punished due to the possible illicit actions of the priest. The priest’s actions are covered in a separate canon. As for the penitent they are governed by the provisions of Canon Law regarding supplied jurisdiction which, as Salza points out, seem to apply to SSPX confessions. And as Canon Law states, when there is a positive and probable doubt, the Law supplies jurisdiction to erase the doubt.
Woywood-Smith, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1962, # 162: Generally speaking, a negative doubt means that one has no reason to serve as a basis for deciding a question, and it is about equal to ignorance on that question. A positive doubt means that one has a good reason for deciding a question one way, but that there is also a reason in favor of a contrary decision of the question. For example, the reasons for and against the existence of jurisdiction in a certain case create a positive doubt; and if the reasons on both sides are of such weight so as to create a bona fide doubt, the Church supplies the jurisdiction, even though actually the person did not possess it.
Click to expand...
In addition natural justice dictates one can be forgiven by Catholic priests of the SSPX since Canon Law even allows Catholics to be validly absolved by schismatic Orthodox priests.

As Salza states…

scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979099/10-do-sspx-priests-have-jurisdiction-to-hear-confessions/
it makes no sense to me that a Catholic can receive the sacraments from a non-Catholic minister but not from a Catholic (SSPX) priest. Canon 844 demonstrates that the Church wants the faithful to have the broadest access possible to the sacraments of Jesus Christ. Why? Because the supreme law of the Church is the salvation of souls. SSPX priests do what they do for that very reason.
Click to expand...
Also, to my knowledge, no Traditional group who has regularized their status with Rome (Campos, Good Shepard, etc.) was ever told by Rome to have their faithful all make general confessions after regularization. Likewise there has been no authoritative declaration from Rome ruling definitively on the matter. If Society confessions were per se invalid Rome would have had a duty to make this well known to the faithful as a serious matter affecting their salvation.

Salza sums it up well here:
We must also remember that canon law is not the only law of the Church that applies to situations like this. There are traditional, ecclesiastical and hierarchical laws, and even the general principles of law (virtue of equity, epikeia), that are fundamental and divine, even if not written down (see canon 19). All these laws are ordered to the supreme law: salus animarum suprema lex. Man has an obligation to save his soul, and thus has a right to receive the means of salvation. While the law of receiving jurisdiction from the hierarchy is a divine law, it is subordinated to the superior law of exercising the priestly ministry. When there is a conflict, the superior law must prevail over the inferior law, which is why ecclesia supplet exists. A man’s right to receive the means of salvation should never be limited by positive law, for in such cases, “the letter killeth” (2 Cor 3:6). This is why the Church can fulfill what the hierarchy does not do through supplied jurisdiction. Mother Church does not abandon her children, even when the hierarchy does. Finally, I don’t understand how the Church would recognize the validity of SSPX Masses but not confessions. The sacrament of confession is integrally linked to the sacrament of the Eucharist. You need one (confession) to generally receive the other (the Eucharist). I believe the Church’s law on ecclesia supplet resolves the question. Nevertheless, let us pray for a definitive judgment from the Church on this matter.
Click to expand...
 
bkovacs said:
Quote: “.then we should go after those that are really damaging the faith, such as rogue priest and Bishops ordaining women”

Well their not doing that. Notre Dame is a perfect example!.
Click to expand...
Given the fact that Notre Dame is no longer a Catholic owned university, but is a private university controlled by a lay (primarily) board of directors, there is precious little that the Catholic church can do. It ceased to be a Catholic-owned university decades ago when most Catholic universities went to lay Boards. While the Holy Cross order staffs it and the president of the university is a Holy Cross priest, the Holy Cross order does not own it any longer. He answers ultimately to the Board of Directors of the private, non-profit corporation.
 
Lamentabili said:
pnewton,

It is not a loophole, but a standing provision of Canon Law. Salza explains it very well in the article I linked to. The first rule of Canon Law is the salvation of souls.
Click to expand...
This does not apply to the SSPX, though, unless the penitent was unaware of their lack of jurisdiction. Supplied jurisdiction being set up as a permanent undermining of the regular jurisdiction of the bishop is ridiculous. I have no doubt that some traditionalist canon lawyers do not agree, seeing what they choose. But it seems all I have heard from mainstream canon lawyers to not agree with this.

I do not agree with Salza. I agree with Jimmy Akin. But hey, if someone wants to roll the dice to avoid a priest with proper jurisdiction, that is something I can not fathom.

No, Salza, the Church does not abandon Her children, but it seems Her children have no problem abandoning Her. I wonder if he would agree that this also applies to excommunicated priest that ordain women and operate outside of the Church to marry homosexuals and defy everything Catholicism stands for. Furthermore, if it only desire for salvation that matters, why even worry about a Catholic priest at all.

No I do not buy the argument. It seems too tailor-made to justify that which he wants to justify.
 
pnewton said:
I wonder if he would agree that this also applies to excommunicated priest that ordain women and operate outside of the Church to marry homosexuals and defy everything Catholicism stands for.
Click to expand...
Newt,

Bad examples. The matter for the Sacrament of Holy Orders is a male so the ordination of women invalidates the sacrament. Likewise, the matter for the Sacrament of Matrimony is a man and a woman - same sex marriage invalidates the sacrament. So that priest is complicit and enabling of the mortal sins of the participants. A little different, methinks.
 
Lamentabili said:
I’m not sure what you have against Robert Sungenis but the argument is put forward by Salza, not Sungenis. In addition, if you read the argument you will see that it is not based on necessity at all. The necessity argument had to do with the excommunication issue which is now moot.
Click to expand...
I agree that the argument is put forth by Salza. It is interesting to note that he does not appear to put himself forth as a Canon laywer, but rather a civil lawyer. And given that they are two distinct bodies of law, and not even of the same foundation, I do not put a whole lot of weight behind his interpretations. As noted; I would much rather see what a Canon lawyer, such as Dr. Peters, has to say.

And while the issue that Salza argues is not necessity but rather the issue of doubt, he seems to be forgetting several things; one of those is that the whole foundation of their continuation, starting with the actual ordination is that there was necessity - an emergency which allegedly gave Lefebvre the right to ordain 4 bishops in direct violation of a specific ruling of the Pope to not do so. The lifting of the excommunication does not resolve the issue of “necessity” as the lifting in no way granted Lefebvre (back in time) the permission to ordain the bishops. Further, “necessity” has been the driving force for their setting up parishes in various places, all of which had legitimately ordained bishops who had legitimately given faculties to various and numerous priests in various parishes. Some people might “feel” that they could not receive legitimate sacraments from those priests and bishops; but that feeling was not and is not today recognized by the Church. And so through their version of “necessity” they have set up parishes, and if the individuals in the parishes were completely ignorant and have remained ignorant of any parts of Canon law concerning the issue of faculties (and I am not convinced all are so ignorant), then much of that ignorance may lie at the feet of the pastors and/or the 4 bishops.

But the bottom line is that the good Esquire wants to argue that there is ignorance, and that becasue the Church seeks the salvation of all souls, then priests who have no faculties simply don’t need them for such issues as Confirmation and Marriage. That makes a mockery of Canon law.

It might also be noted that while there may be a grey area concerning the issue of Confession, that, if someone is in a state of mortal sin, is a critical sacrament. Neither Confirmation nor Marriage so rate.
 
There are other legitimate TLM Masses to attend if you wish and are said by priests in Communion with Rome. Institute of Christ the King, FSSP and the Order of St. John Cantius are examples. Due to this, I see no reason to legitimately attend an SSPX Mass in normal circumstances.
 
giuseppeTO said:
Newt,

Bad examples. The matter for the Sacrament of Holy Orders is a male so the ordination of women invalidates the sacrament. Likewise, the matter for the Sacrament of Matrimony is a man and a woman - same sex marriage invalidates the sacrament. So that priest is complicit and enabling of the mortal sins of the participants. A little different, methinks.
Click to expand...
I wasn’ referring to women priest. I was referring to the male priests that have ordained women, rejected every teaching of the Church and marry homosexuals. Is going to such a priest for confession day in and day out okey-dokey with you, since the Church supplies?
 
pnewton said:
I wasn’ referring to women priest. I was referring to the male priests that have ordained women, rejected every teaching of the Church and marry homosexuals. Is going to such a priest for confession day in and day out okey-dokey with you, since the Church supplies?
Click to expand...
Sounds like your typical Novus Ordo priest to me, Newt, so you’ll have to answer that question. I’ll be disappointed in you if you don’t use the “as long as he has faculties” litmus test.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top