SSPX mass OK?

[pnewton]

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.

You have serious issues if you think the typical Novus Ordo priest ordains women. You are totally off in right field if you think the typical priest disagrees with everything the Church teaches or marries homosexual. I pray someday you will be able to overcome your prejudice and return to reality where the Holy Father leads and we follow.

All I can do is point out the result of someone who gives themself over to the indoctination of extreme groups and how far out of touch with reality they are.

I think most all Catholics, not SSPX, can agree, that their priest do not oppose everything the Church teaches, that their priest does not ordain women or marry homosexuals.

 

[otjm]

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.

The very practical issue is that in many areas, none of the three are availble, and in addition, in many areas, the EF is not available through either a diocesan or order priest in a local parish. The number of parishes world wide that are offering the EF is very low - something in the range of about 1 in 250.

 

[Lamentabili]

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.

Salza is not arguing ignorance, he is applying the facts of the Society’s situation with canons involving common error of law or fact. He explains that “common error” is a legal fiction whereby if circumstances exist that make one reasonably believe the priest can absolve, a situation of “common error” exists. Some may be ignorant that the priest has no faculties and some may not be. Nevertheless, the traditional interpretation is that all who present themselves for confession in this situation can be validly absolved. Jurisdiction is not supplied carte blanche but supplied to the priest for each individual penitent.

For an explanation of how the Society sees supplied jurisdiction applying complete with Canonical citation one can read Fr. Angles’ Canonical study of the issue here:

sspx.org/miscellaneous/validity_of_confessions_1.htm

It expands on what Salza was saying. If you read it all the way through it is actually a pretty fascinating study.

 

[Lamentabili]

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.

Excommunicated priests are a different matter. The following canons apply…

• 2. Without prejudice to the rule of # 3 of this Canon, the faithful may for any just reason ask the Sacraments and Sacramentals from an excommunicated person especially if there is no other minister available, and the excommunicated person at their request may minister to them without any obligation to inquire into the reason for the request.​

3. From a minister who is an excommunicatus vitandus, or who has been excommunicated by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may ask for sacramental absolution in accordance with Canons 882 and 2252 only in danger of death, but, in the absence of other ministers, they can also ask for the other Sacraments and Sacramentals. (Canon 2261)​

• If a censure prohibits the celebration of the Sacraments or Sacramentals or the placing of an act of jurisdiction, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to take care of the faithful who are in danger of death; and if an automatic censure is not a declared one, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a Sacrament, a Sacramental or an act of jurisdiction; this request can be made for any just cause whatsoever. (New Code 1335)

 

[Aramis]

The SSPX suspension ad divinis is a declared one. Therefore, per the canon cited by lamentabili, unless ministering to those in danger of death, they are not subject to supplied jurisdiction.

 

[ProVobis]

The SSPX suspension ad divinis is a declared one. Therefore, per the canon cited by lamentabili, unless ministering to those in danger of death, they are not subject to supplied jurisdiction.

Declared in 1976, as a matter of fact. The 1917 Code of Canon Law was in effect then but I don’t think the 1984 Code of Canon Law affects the status.

Now for their defense:

SOME OBSERVATIONS

The Church, by approving the SSPX, approved also that it live, i.e., that it have all the ordinary means to lead its religious life and fulfill its aim. This is a fundamental consideration when taking into consideration the nullity of its suppression (QUESTION 3).

Also, a brief examination into the legality of the actions (retracting the ability to incardinate members and the declared suspensions) taken against Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society will show that these proceedings were not canonical (i.e., not lawful), had no foundation which thereby made them unjust, and therefore had no validity whatsoever.

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q4_absuspended.htm

 

[Aramis]

The excommunication was lifted by Rome not for invalidity, but in hopes of reconciliation. (In fact, the suspension has never been lifted; only the excommunication.)

The SSPX claims of its invalidity have never been substantiated, nor have they come forth for trial of it to clear their names of the charges laid by Pope John Paul II… A right they have abrogated consistently, instead claiming a need (which said need was declared by two popes to be false), and misrepresenting their status.

 

[ishiac]

The excommunication was lifted by Rome not for invalidity, but in hopes of reconciliation. (In fact, the suspension has never been lifted; only the excommunication.)

The SSPX claims of its invalidity have never been substantiated, nor have they come forth for trial of it to clear their names of the charges laid by Pope John Paul II… A right they have abrogated consistently, instead claiming a need (which said need was declared by two popes to be false), and misrepresenting their status.

An invalid excommunication is never a true excommunication. Even an EWTN commentary admitted, the excommunication was false and a attempt to force the SSPX to accept the new mass.
The church holds requirements that have to be gone against in order to be excommunicated, one of them being going fully against one or more of the doctrines given to us by Christ and openly going against God which Archbishop Lefebvre never did.

The SSPX has always been willing and wanting of a full understanding of truth with Rome; they were never granted this to take place under Pope John Paul II so don’t falsely accuse them till you objectively and truthfully look at the events that really transpired.

 

[fish90]

Can anyone answer this in brief?

I thought that the SSPX was excommunicated due to them rejecting some teachings of Vatican II and finding Popes Benedict and John Paul II to be invalid Popes. Why were they excommunicated then?

 

[ProVobis]

Can anyone answer this in brief?

I thought that the SSPX was excommunicated due to them rejecting some teachings of Vatican II and finding Popes Benedict and John Paul II to be invalid Popes. Why were they excommunicated then?

The alleged excommunications were due to the ordination of four bishops not approved by Rome. These excommunications (of the bishops) were lifted earlier this year. Acceptance of certain Vatican II issues are now being discussed in order to bring them into proper canonical status. In the meantime priests are still suspended from fulfilling their full ministry. They were never excommunicated, however, and are eligible to receive the sacraments.

 

[ProVobis]

The SSPX has always been willing and wanting of a full understanding of truth with Rome; they were never granted this to take place under Pope John Paul II so don’t falsely accuse them till you objectively and truthfully look at the events that really transpired.

To some extent the SSPX were granted some concessions. In 1986, for example, the Pope appointed a commission of nine Cardinals to study the status of the Traditional Latin Mass and whether every priest had the power to say it. The answer in one case was unanimously yes and the other was almost unanimously yes. However, the Pope was strongly urged not to release the study to the public, and this further angered the Archbishop.

 

[Aramis]

Can anyone answer this in brief?

I thought that the SSPX was excommunicated due to them rejecting some teachings of Vatican II and finding Popes Benedict and John Paul II to be invalid Popes. Why were they excommunicated then?

Only their bishops, for the ordination of 4 bishops in direct rejection of orders not to from the Pope.

The invalidity issues are a heresy, sedevaticanism, and whilst common amongst lay adherents to the SSPX, not really part of the SSPX platform. The SSPV, however… but they are a different bunch of schismatics.

One MUST divorce what the lay-followers of the SSPX hold from what the SSPX itself teaches. The SSPX is a society of secular priests and deacons; they cound in their number seminarians and subdeacons, tho current canon law does not count those men as clerics.

The SSPX at present holds that the OF mass is valid but inappropriate and maybe even illicit; many of the followers believe it to be invalid and damnable. The SSPX holds that the pope is still their pope, but that their disobedience and continuing disobedience was & is justified; a small fraction of the lay-followers hold that there has been no pope since Pp. Paul VI; A smallter still group reject Popes John XXIII & Paul VI as well. The SSPX considers subdeacons major orders; the church as a whole ceased to do so at Vatican II, since the order of Subdeacons is not biblical in origin (while Priests, Deacons and Bishops are), and in fact abolished the order for the Roman church. The SSPX has never attacked the Eastern Churches in Union with Rome; many lay adherents of the SSPX do so regularly, either claiming them a heresy or by attempting to push for latinzations.

The only problems with the SSPX are that it has usurped the role of an autonomous church (A church Sui Iuris), and that it rejects the authority of Rome over itself. The problems of many of the SSPX’s lay-adherents is that they go well beyond anything the SSPX itself permits, and that many of them reject Rome’s authority over the SSPX.

And then there’s Bishop Williamson… who has chosen to take some very unhealthy views and make them very public.

As a generality, however, the SSPX itself rejects Rome’s authority, whilst asserting Rome’s primacy, and keeps the catholic faith,

 

[giuseppeTO]

Only their bishops, for the ordination of 4 bishops in direct rejection of orders not to from the Pope.

The invalidity issues are a heresy, sedevaticanism, and whilst common amongst lay adherents to the SSPX, not really part of the SSPX platform. The SSPV, however… but they are a different bunch of schismatics.

One MUST divorce what the lay-followers of the SSPX hold from what the SSPX itself teaches. The SSPX is a society of secular priests and deacons; they cound in their number seminarians and subdeacons, tho current canon law does not count those men as clerics.

The SSPX at present holds that the OF mass is valid but inappropriate and maybe even illicit; many of the followers believe it to be invalid and damnable. The SSPX holds that the pope is still their pope, but that their disobedience and continuing disobedience was & is justified; a small fraction of the lay-followers hold that there has been no pope since Pp. Paul VI; A smallter still group reject Popes John XXIII & Paul VI as well. The SSPX considers subdeacons major orders; the church as a whole ceased to do so at Vatican II, since the order of Subdeacons is not biblical in origin (while Priests, Deacons and Bishops are), and in fact abolished the order for the Roman church. The SSPX has never attacked the Eastern Churches in Union with Rome; many lay adherents of the SSPX do so regularly, either claiming them a heresy or by attempting to push for latinzations.

The only problems with the SSPX are that it has usurped the role of an autonomous church (A church Sui Iuris), and that it rejects the authority of Rome over itself. The problems of many of the SSPX’s lay-adherents is that they go well beyond anything the SSPX itself permits, and that many of them reject Rome’s authority over the SSPX.

And then there’s Bishop Williamson… who has chosen to take some very unhealthy views and make them very public.

As a generality, however, the SSPX itself rejects Rome’s authority, whilst asserting Rome’s primacy, and keeps the catholic faith,

Aramis,

More hogwash here than in a pig sty. Please get your facts straight and quote your sources before becoming the SSPX Wikipedia.

 

[ProVobis]

The SSPX at present holds that the OF mass is valid but inappropriate and maybe even illicit; many of the followers believe it to be invalid and damnable.

I know some SSPX and non-SSPX people who doubt the validity of the consecration formula in certain vernaculars. With good reason, I might add, seeing that the Vatican wants to correct this formula. It’s a little disingenuous to accuse them or anyone of calling the OF invalid without stating the reasons. There are a number of reasons why any Mass would be invalid.

 

[Lamentabili]

The SSPX suspension ad divinis is a declared one. Therefore, per the canon cited by lamentabili, unless ministering to those in danger of death, they are not subject to supplied jurisdiction.

The suspension of the SSPX priests was never declared. A declaration involves an official judge or authority making an official canonical declaration of the censure. This took place with the '88 excommunications but not with the suspension of the priests.

 

[pnewton]

An invalid excommunication is never a true excommunication.

This really begs the question as to what is valid and what is not. If the Holy Father can not excommunicate without it being a matter of opinion, then excommunication does not practically exist.

The SSPX has always been willing and wanting of a full understanding of truth with Rome; they were never granted this to take place under Pope John Paul II so don’t falsely accuse them till you objectively and truthfully look at the events that really transpired.

I have looked at the event and am very much in disagreement about the cooperation of the SSPX in the past, at least some of the bishops. The mere fact that you made such a broad, sweeping statement (always been willing and wanting of a full understanding) should raise an eyebrow.

 

[Aramis]

The suspension of the SSPX priests was never declared. A declaration involves an official judge or authority making an official canonical declaration of the censure. This took place with the '88 excommunications but not with the suspension of the priests.

If it wasn’t before Pope Benedict, it certainly has been by Pope Benedict. There is no higher authority in the Catholic Church than the pope. If you deny his authority to state the suspensions still in effect, then you are denying the authority of the pope as Patriarch of Rome. The following quotes show that’ rome’s position is clear: no licit ministry.

recent documents from the Pope himself indicate the lack of any legitimate ministry…

The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

The remission of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a very serious canonical penalty, but it has not changed the juridical status of the Society of Saint Pius X, which presently does not enjoy any canonical recognition by the Catholic Church. The four bishops, even though they have been released from excommunication, have no canonical function in the Church and do not licitly exercise any ministry within it.

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2009/documents/rc_seg-st_20090204_note-decree-cbishops_en.html

Any ministry they participate in is illicit. So says the pope THIS YEAR. After lifting the excommunication. So also says the Secretariate of State for the Church. It can’t be any clearer: they are illicit, and justification theories aside, are iligitimate in all their ministries.

SSPX lay-adherent fantasies to the contrary not withstanding, the SSPX are not heroes. They are clerics without the right to function, in active disobedience as grave, if not more so, as the day the Bishops excommunications were recognized. And understanding that the excommunications were not lifted for invalidity but as a step in reconicilation is important; denial of this truth is the largest lie I’ve heard from the lay-adherents. Cdl. Rey’s publication of the remission makes clear the reasons; they are reiterated elsewhere as well. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html

 

[giuseppeTO]

If it wasn’t before Pope Benedict, it certainly has been by Pope Benedict. There is no higher authority in the Catholic Church than the pope. If you deny his authority to state the suspensions still in effect, then you are denying the authority of the pope as Patriarch of Rome. The following quotes show that’ rome’s position is clear: no licit ministry.

recent documents from the Pope himself indicate the lack of any legitimate ministry…

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2009/documents/rc_seg-st_20090204_note-decree-cbishops_en.html

Any ministry they participate in is illicit. So says the pope THIS YEAR. After lifting the excommunication. So also says the Secretariate of State for the Church. It can’t be any clearer: they are illicit, and justification theories aside, are iligitimate in all their ministries.

SSPX lay-adherent fantasies to the contrary not withstanding, the SSPX are not heroes. They are clerics without the right to function, in active disobedience as grave, if not more so, as the day the Bishops excommunications were recognized. And understanding that the excommunications were not lifted for invalidity but as a step in reconicilation is important; denial of this truth is the largest lie I’ve heard from the lay-adherents. Cdl. Rey’s publication of the remission makes clear the reasons; they are reiterated elsewhere as well. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html

I’ll bet it confuses and angers you that the Vatican has said that it is acceptable to assist at an SSPX Mass - given all their nasty active and grave disobedience and illicity. What could those rascally Ecclesia Dei folks have been thinking of!

 

[Lamentabili]

Aramis,

As I’ve stated before, those quotes by Pope Benedict are simply statements of fact that are contained in a letter whose purpose was to reprimand German Bishops opposed to the reintegration of the Society.

They were not declarations of canonical censure like the declaration the Congregation of Bishops made in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre and the 4 Bishops he ordained. A declaration typically names those who have been censured by name and uses a formulaic language.

In your quotes Pope Benedict is simply reiterating for clarification that the remitting of the excommunications does not mean the Society is fully regularized yet (lest the faithful be confused and think all is regularized).

 

[pnewton]

I’ll bet it confuses and angers you that the Vatican has said that it is acceptable to assist at an SSPX Mass - given all their nasty active and grave disobedience and illicity. What could those rascally Ecclesia Dei folks have been thinking of!

I don’t think it angers anyone. For certain “acceptable” is in the category of feint praise. Neocatechumen Way, Life Teen Mass, communion in the hand, girl altar servers, various lay ministries, all acceptable.

I guess what I am saying is that it is good to see you point out that assisting at an SSPX Mass is acceptable, something I said in my first post here. Now would be the time to shed double standards. If do not like to be criticized for attending a Mass that the Vatican has said is acceptable, then the Golden Rule would dictate that you and the SSPX stop criticizing all the other things in the Catholic Faith that are acceptable.

You guys do still keep the Golden Rule, don’t you?

The flip side is for those that want to go beyond what the Church has said and act like there is no good reason for ever attending an SSPX Mass, or that it is sinful for those that do. It is acceptable.