SSPX question

[dans0622]

Canon 1335. Canon 144.

Hello Shin,

Canon 144 is a can of worms. It’s hard to make generalizations, it seems to me, and I think there are disagreements on how it applies to the SSPX priests and the faithful who frequent their churches.

I don’t see the relevance of c. 1335: nobody is excommunicated, suspended, or interdicted. The SSPX has no canonical status and the priests do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church. This is what the Pope said a couple years ago. But, there are no longer any penalties (latae sententiae or otherwise) which prohibit the celebration/administration of Sacraments.

Dan

 

[ProVobis]

The SSPX has no canonical status and the priests do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church.

Except on moral issues such as pro-life, etc.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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?

Here’s the tricky part, because the Orthodox can chrismate/confirm validly without any faculties or communion with the Catholics Church. And the Catholic Church sure recognizes this as valid. Also, for Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, the regular minister of chrismation is the priest, who administers all 3 Sacraments of Initiation at the same time.

Now, given that the Orthodox are not subject to Canon Law, and since the SSPX are probably not as well because otherwise they will not keep their chapels open, then its possible that their Bishops can grant permission to priests to perform confirmations even though it is not in accordance to Canon Law. I believe that will still be valid, whilst illicit.

 

[markomalley]

Here’s the tricky part, because the Orthodox can chrismate/confirm validly without any faculties or communion with the Catholics Church. And the Catholic Church sure recognizes this as valid. Also, for Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, the regular minister of chrismation is the priest, who administers all 3 Sacraments of Initiation at the same time.

Now, given that the Orthodox are not subject to Canon Law, and since the SSPX are probably not as well because otherwise they will not keep their chapels open, then its possible that their Bishops can grant permission to priests to perform confirmations even though it is not in accordance to Canon Law. I believe that will still be valid, whilst illicit.

Actually, that’s not a good analogy. In the schism of 1054, whole patriarchies broke communion with Rome. According to Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea, each Patriarch has the right to approve the ordination of bishops within his own Patriarchate (as applies to Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Canon 2 of the 1st Council of Constantinople extends this right to Constantinople and gives that See privileges second to Rome).

In fact, each Patriarchate has this autocephaly, bestowed on it by an Ecumenical Council. In fact, Canon 6 also states: In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan (a/k/a Patriarch), this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop

The point being that making comparisons between the Orthodox and SSPX is simply not valid.

 

[ANNE_2]

FSSP is not related to SSPX.

The FSSP, “Fraternitas Sacerdotalis S. Petri”, Priestly Society of St. Peter are Roman Catholic Priests who work for the formation and sanctification of priests in the traditional liturgy “extraordinary form” of the Roman rite, and the pastoral deployment of priests in the services of the Church.
They were founded in Switzerland on 18 July, 1988 by Priests and Seminarians. They are currently serving in 113 Diocese around the World.
They do a beautiful and reverant Latin Mass.
My Diocese Bishop recommends their Latin Mass for all those who are interested.

The lastest from the Vatican regarding the
SSPX - Society of St. Pius X - can be found on
vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2009/documents/rc_seg-st_20090204_note-decree-cbishops_en.html

 

[TheMc]

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

I assume those sacraments need faculties?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I assume those sacraments need faculties?

Yes. Well for marriages the function of the priest or deacon is a representative of the Church. So one must be in good standing with the Church to represent her.

Confession is a ministry of the Church and therefore would require faculties to be valid. Although the Church would supply faculties to any valid priest in time of need as an act of mercy to the person in need. So if you are on a plane and the engines blew out and you are sitting next to an SSPX priest, you can start confessing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually, that’s not a good analogy. In the schism of 1054, whole patriarchies broke communion with Rome. According to Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea, each Patriarch has the right to approve the ordination of bishops within his own Patriarchate (as applies to Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Canon 2 of the 1st Council of Constantinople extends this right to Constantinople and gives that See privileges second to Rome).

In fact, each Patriarchate has this autocephaly, bestowed on it by an Ecumenical Council. In fact, Canon 6 also states: In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan (a/k/a Patriarch), this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop

The point being that making comparisons between the Orthodox and SSPX is simply not valid.

But didn’t Rome recognize the Bishops of the SSPX as valid? Only that they broke Canon Law which required Papal approval of all Episcopal ordinations that is why they were excommunicated, as stated by law as well?

 

[markomalley]

But didn’t Rome recognize the Bishops of the SSPX as valid? Only that they broke Canon Law which required Papal approval of all Episcopal ordinations that is why they were excommunicated, as stated by law as well?

Valid, yes. Licit, no. And since we are talking about a legal process (granting faculties), liceity has everything to do with it.

Because +Levebvre was not one of the Pentarchy.

If, please God, the Eastern Patriarchs (along with the Metropolitan of Cyprus, per the Council of Ephesus) return to communion with the Holy Father, they would still have the right to ordain their own bishops.

The only question that I would have would be from the multiple layers of autocephaly that is practiced in the East. For example, Constantinople granted autocephaly to Moscow a few centuries ago. Subsequent to that, Moscow granted autocephaly to the OCA in the US. Since that is not (with the exception of Cyprus, as I mentioned above) authorized by an ecumenical council, I don’t know that it would be allowed to stand.

Having said that, though, there is the issue of Canon 144. But that was discussed earlier.

The other point to bring up, and one that I am not familiar enough with to discuss intelligently, is the difference in the traditions of the East and the West. In the East, of course, chrismation is accomplished at the time of baptism. I don’t know enough about the Eastern Church to know if the ordinary minister of the sacrament in the Eastern tradition is the priest or the bishop. I also don’t know if, in the East, faculties must be granted or not.

But, in any event, SSPX is also not an Eastern Church. It is thoroughly Latin.

 

[laszlo]

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.

The problem should be investigated from the point of view of the penitent. If the penitent confesses his/her sins to an SSPX priests, knowingly that the the Church did not approved their jurisdiction to hear confession, so his confession is denying the rights of the hierarchy, then his confession is invalid. There is no life outside of the Church, and the Church is not the people, not the lower clergy, buy Jesus Christ, the hierarchy and those in full communion with it.

Naturally as Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Christians, Protestants can go to to Kingdom of Heaven, so do the SSPX followers too. But not as full members of the Catholic Church.

 

[PaulinVA]

The problem should be investigated from the point of view of the penitent. If the penitent confesses his/her sins to an SSPX priests, knowingly that the the Church did not approved their jurisdiction to hear confession, so his confession is denying the rights of the hierarchy, then his confession is invalid. There is no life outside of the Church, and the Church is not the people, not the lower clergy, buy Jesus Christ, the hierarchy and those in full communion with it.
.

Well, what about the people who go to the SSPX chapels every week and, because it is “their parish” believe the verbal and theological gymnastics the SSPX goes through (their web site is an example) to prove that there is an “emergency” in the Church and that supplied jurisdiction occurs due to that emergency? Because the SSPX is teaching good-meaning people this, does it mean that the Church really does supply jurisdiction and that it’s a millstone around the teachers’ necks?