SSPX question

[Monica4316]

(by the way I am not planning on going to an SSPX chapel… I was just wondering)

Does the SSPX have valid Sacraments? Apostolic Succession? Do they believe that Pope Benedict is the real Pope?

Also, is it true that the first FSSP priests came from the SSPX? If so, were they re-ordained, or not?

thank you!

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

(by the way I am not planning on going to an SSPX chapel… I was just wondering)

Does the SSPX have valid Sacraments? Apostolic Succession? Do they believe that Pope Benedict is the real Pope?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Also, is it true that the first FSSP priests came from the SSPX? If so, were they re-ordained, or not?

thank you!

I heard that FSSP came from the SSPX, though I’ve never researched it myself.

 

[ConstantineTG]

(by the way I am not planning on going to an SSPX chapel… I was just wondering)

Does the SSPX have valid Sacraments?

Not all Sacraments. They cannot perform marriages and hear confessions.

Apostolic Succession?

Yes

Do they believe that Pope Benedict is the real Pope?

To a certain extent. They are not sedevacantists, but they also believe the entire Church has veered from the right path, including the Pope.

Also, is it true that the first FSSP priests came from the SSPX?

I’m not sure but I heard that story as well.

If so, were they re-ordained, or not?

thank you!

No. Their Bishops are valid Bishops. The ordinations of the Bishops were illicit, not invalid.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, yes, and yes.

Not really. You cannot hear confessions without faculties. You also cannot perform valid marriages without faculties or the proper dispensation from the Church. The pre-requisite to a Roman Catholic marriage is that there is a representative of the Church as a witness to the marriage, be it priest, deacon or even lay person. Since the SSPX has no ministry in the Church as of now, then they cannot represent the Church.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Not really. You cannot hear confessions without faculties. You also cannot perform valid marriages without faculties or the proper dispensation from the Church. The pre-requisite to a Roman Catholic marriage is that there is a representative of the Church as a witness to the marriage, be it priest, deacon or even lay person. Since the SSPX has no ministry in the Church as of now, then they cannot represent the Church.

However, the Vatican has been known to recognize confessions heard by SSPX priests. I believe one poster in another thread says he knows an SSPX priest who HAD his recognized. I don’t think that the Church is going to approve something that isn’t valid, eh?

 

[markomalley]

However, the Vatican has been known to recognize confessions heard by SSPX priests. I believe one poster in another thread says he knows an SSPX priest who HAD his recognized. I don’t think that the Church is going to approve something that isn’t valid, eh?

That would be an individual priest (or inidividual priests) receiving faculties from an Ordinary. Big difference. And it would be highly odd.

As a result of the illicit ordination of four bishops by Abp Lefebvre in 1988, Pope Bl. John Paul II excommunicated the 5, as stated in his Apostolic Letter (given Motu Proprio) Ecclesia Dei. Bl JPII also, as a result of that same letter, provided an indult for the Mass to be celebrated according to the Missal of Bl. John XXIII, with the consent of the local ordinary. This letter also provided for the establishment of FSSP, for the training of priests in the traditional rite and a society in union with the Holy See for those SSPX priests who wished to not go into schism and remain in union with the Holy See. Those priests who remained with SSPX were considered schismatic and, consequently, latae sententiae excommunicated. From the letter:

Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.

There is no way that a priest of SSPX could have the faculties to hear confession if he is latae sententieae excommunicated.

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the formally declared excommunication of the four bishops illicitly ordained by Abp. Lefebvre, as documented in his Apostolic Letter (Motu Proprio) Ecclesiae Unitatem. However, at the same time, in this letter, he also makes the following statement:

However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.

I know that there are some in SSPX who make the claim that all is well now that the excommunications have been lifted. I could imagine that a priest of the SSPX could imagine that now he automatically has faculties. But nothing could be further from the truth.

As has been said previously, it is foreseeable, if not highly irregular, that a priest of the SSPX might have been granted faculties by his local ordinary. I am not discounting that possibility. But there is no way that any SSPX priest automatically has any faculties to hear confessions outside of that remote possibility.

 

[laszlo]

With the exception of giving absolution and witnessing marriages, which requires active jurisdiction, the SSPX sacraments are valid. The majority of the believes that the recent pope is validly ordained to bishop and validly elected to the papacy.

The FSSP priests reverted to the jurisdiction of Roma 1n 1989, when Archbishop Lefevbre and the 4 bishop whom he ordained were excommunicated. Thee were not re-ordained. More recently the Transalpine Redemptorist were reverting from the SSPX, neither there were re-ordained. Only the SSPX re-ordaine conditionally those who convert to their rank

 

[PA650]

(by the way I am not planning on going to an SSPX chapel… I was just wondering)

Does the SSPX have valid Sacraments? Apostolic Succession? Do they believe that Pope Benedict is the real Pope?

Also, is it true that the first FSSP priests came from the SSPX? If so, were they re-ordained, or not?

thank you!

Although the responses so far is this thread have been correct, you might still desire to check out the FAQs section of the SSPX USA District website:
sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm

 

[markomalley]

With the exception of giving absolution and witnessing marriages, which requires active jurisdiction, the SSPX sacraments are valid.

Confirmation would be valid ONLY if the bishop, himself, performs the confirmation:
Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confirmation is a bishop; a presbyter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament validly.
Since the bishops do not have any recognized jurisdictional authority, they would not be capable of granting faculties to any presbyters.

Having said that, though, according to the SSPX FAQ, the SSPX cites Canon 144:
Can. 144 §1. In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum.

§2. The same norm is applied to the faculties mentioned in cann. 882, 883, 966, and 1111, §1.
If SSPX is correct, then any of the sacraments ministered by SSPX priests are valid. But that is up to a tribunal to decide, not a layperson like myself.

 

[ConstantineTG]

However, the Vatican has been known to recognize confessions heard by SSPX priests. I believe one poster in another thread says he knows an SSPX priest who HAD his recognized. I don’t think that the Church is going to approve something that isn’t valid, eh?

Sorry, this is not true. The Vatican has not changed the SSPX status. No ministry in the Church means they do not have faculties.

Although being valid priests, you can get your confessions heard if you are in danger of death. The Church will automatically supply the faculties as an act of mercy towards you and by virtue of the law and circumstance. Otherwise, they cannot absolve validly in behalf of the Catholic Church. Remember, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is a ministry of the Church. What the Sacrament does is not only restore our relationship with Christ, it also restores our relationship with the Church. How can a priest who himself has no relationship with the Church restore us to the Catholic Church?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Confirmation would be valid ONLY if the bishop, himself, performs the confirmation:
Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confirmation is a bishop; a presbyter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament validly.
Since the bishops do not have any recognized jurisdictional authority, they would not be capable of granting faculties to any presbyters.

Having said that, though, according to the SSPX FAQ, the SSPX cites Canon 144:
Can. 144 §1. In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum.

§2. The same norm is applied to the faculties mentioned in cann. 882, 883, 966, and 1111, §1.
If SSPX is correct, then any of the sacraments ministered by SSPX priests are valid. But that is up to a tribunal to decide, not a layperson like myself.

The SSPX has their own Bishops who can do confirmations.

 

[markomalley]

The SSPX has their own Bishops who can do confirmations.

Did not say otherwise. But there are four bishops (or maybe only three now…not sure if +Williamson is allowed to do so by +Fellay)

While, with very careful scheduling, I’m certain that they could work it out for confirmation of school-age kids, what about the Easter Vigil? In the Church, those confirmations are done by the pastors, not the bishops. With only 4 (3?) bishops, how could that be done…even if only 1/4 of the chapels around the world had candidates?

 

[Shin]

Although being valid priests, you can get your confessions heard if you are in danger of death. . .

Otherwise, they cannot absolve validly in behalf of the Catholic Church

Actually this is untrue. The Church automatically supplies faculties far more broadly than just in danger of death.

Which is part of other inaccuracies in the above that you have stated.

I am not a canon law expert, but I can read the canons, and it looks quite different based on that simple understanding and reading. I am ready to be corrected but frankly…

 

[corsair]

My, my; so many Canon lawyers. Beginning to sound a lot like protestants claiming they have the correct “word”. Perhaps I’ll just let time and the involved parties, Vatican & SSPX, work it out. Until then its the EF for me.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

My, my; so many Canon lawyers. Beginning to sound a lot like protestants claiming they have the correct “word”. Perhaps I’ll just let time and the involved parties, Vatican & SSPX, work it out. Until then its the EF for me.

I think this is a prudent choice.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Actually this is untrue. The Church automatically supplies faculties far more broadly than just in danger of death.

Which is part of other inaccuracies in the above that you have stated.

I am not a canon law expert, but I can read the canons, and it looks quite different based on that simple understanding and reading. I am ready to be corrected but frankly…

You need to provide proof to back up this opinion of yours.

 

[Shin]

Canon 1335. Canon 144.

Read a commentary on them if need be, such as from the New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law.

Canon Law is made for the salvation of souls.

All of the above is online.



Very generous laws.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Canon 1335. Canon 144.

Read a commentary on them if need be, such as from the New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law.

Canon Law is made for the salvation of souls.

All of the above is online.



Very generous laws.

Commentary is not binding and is only the opinion of the Canon Lawyer who wrote it.

Here are the actual Canons;
Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of the sacraments or sacramentals or the exercise of a power of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever this is necessary to provide for the faithful who are in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever one of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of the power of governance; for any just reason it is lawful to make such a request.

I do not see how this would apply. As it states, for any just reason, there is no just reason to approach an SSPX priest for confession when there are ample priests with faculties to do so.

Can. 144 §1 In common error, whether of fact or of law, and in positive and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and the internal forum.
§2 The same norm applies to the faculties mentioned in cann. 883, 966, and 1111 §1.

I am assuming you are trying to apply Can. 144 §1 here and it also does not work as there is no positive or probable doubt that an SSPX priest does not have faculites to hear confessions.

As for marriages we can look to the precident set when the group in Campos Brazil leave their affiliation with the SSPX and reentered communion with Rome, the marriages that they had performed were made valid by “radical sanation” so by this act Rome acknowledged that the marriages were invalid and thereby made them valid after the group entered full Communion.

 

[markomalley]

Canon 1335. Canon 144.

Read a commentary on them if need be, such as from the New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law.

Canon Law is made for the salvation of souls.

All of the above is online.



Very generous laws.

Just read the New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law on both of those two canons.

The commentary on Canon 144 states that it must be a common error, not just a matter of ignorance. The error must be of such a nature taht it is capable of gaining the assent of a prudent person.

For example, if a priest of the SSPX started to hear confessions within a Catholic Church (one that is generally known to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome), his absolutions would be valid for the penitents who confessed to him. A prudent person would have no reason to question whether or not he had faculties to hear confessions.

On the other hand, if this same SSPX priest was to hear confessions within an SSPX chapel, a prudent person would have every reason in the world to question whether this priest would have faculties to hear confessions given him by the local Ordinary.

Having said that, though, the Commentary does also bring up a valid point which I hadn’t considered (thank you for talking me into referring to it): such a common error could have been induced by faulty teaching. SSPX parishioners could have been deceived over a long period of time by their priests and bishops into believing that they had valid faculties. In such a case, it appears that the absolution (or other sacraments requiring faculties) would be valid for that particular set of parishioners. On the other hand, it wouldn’t apply to a reasonably well informed Catholic who had not been subjected to that erroneous teaching.

Likewise, it seems that if the SSPX parishioners **understand **that neither the Holy See nor the local Ordinary have granted faculties to the SSPX priest in question but allow him to minister the sacrament(s) to them anyway, it also appears that this Canon would not apply.

As you say, Canon Law is made for the salvation of souls.

After reading the Commentary, that’s my **lay **understanding. But, as with anything else, only a canon lawyer would be able to give any kind of an expert opinion on the subject and only a tribunal would be able to arrive at a conclusion.

As for Canon 1335, that canon merely talks about a common principle that any kind of censure does not apply in the danger of death. That is pretty well common knowledge, I’d think.

 

[tradcathconvert]

The original FSSP priests were former members of the SSPX. See here
fssp.org/en/declfond.htm