SSPX Questions

[TNT]

Thanks everyone for posting. I am still confused about the distinctions between Illicit and Valid. How can you have both?
So if I understand corectly going to a SSPX Mass would be ok as long as you do not financially, or philisophocally support them? Is it against Rome and Our holy Father to even go?

You have a VALID Driver’s license.
It is ILLICIT (illegal) to use it when your driving privileges have been suspended.
But, you still have a valid license.
If you had an INVALID driver’s license (you bought it from a counterfeiter), you really have NO VALID driver’s license at all.
ANGLICAN priestly orders are INVALID ie null & void, worthless.
E-Orthodox Orders are VALID but illicit in that the Catholic Church (the source of Priestly Orders) has declared them Schismatics. At least until recently.​

You can go to an SSPX Mass to support the new Dogma of Ecumenism. You just cannot apparently promote the SSPX agendas by deed.
They are hybrid…a Prodical Son…still in the family but banished from the house so to speak.

 

[Potato1]

Thursday and TNT,
Thank you for your clarifications. They really helped. I am just so frustrated and sick with our parishes where I live and it seems to be getting worse. I was contemplating going to anSSPX Mass nearby just for some sanity and hope, but I am starting to see that that will only add more frustration and confusion. I am truely heavy hearted over the shap of our Church. God help us.

 

[Windmill]

i think it is understandable to retreat to the ghettos. however, think of this:

if we abandon the fight, who will be left in the mainstream parishes to stand up for things? priests may truly want to turn some things around, and sometimes, even if there is just one person who supports him, he will do it.

i think we should stay and try to bring the good, the true, and the beautiful to bear on parochial life. that was the way of christ: to bring light into darkness. the o.t. way of things was to separate oneself from “the outsiders”. this bred pharisseism.

i think that most people on this forum are dedicated to bringing the light of christ to bear in their own lives, families, parishes, communities, etc…

i would add this: encourage your priests when they do something right. it is oftentimes met with resistance from more liberal members of congregations. these people tend to be very vocal. when a priest does a good thing, let him know you are proud of him. you may be the only one, and he needs to hear it.

 

[Potato1]

i think it is understandable to retreat to the ghettos. however, think of this:

if we abandon the fight, who will be left in the mainstream parishes to stand up for things? priests may truly want to turn some things around, and sometimes, even if there is just one person who supports him, he will do it.

i think we should stay and try to bring the good, the true, and the beautiful to bear on parochial life. that was the way of christ: to bring light into darkness. the o.t. way of things was to separate oneself from “the outsiders”. this bred pharisseism.

i think that most people on this forum are dedicated to bringing the light of christ to bear in their own lives, families, parishes, communities, etc…

i would add this: encourage your priests when they do something right. it is oftentimes met with resistance from more liberal members of congregations. these people tend to be very vocal. when a priest does a good thing, let him know you are proud of him. you may be the only one, and he needs to hear it.

Unfortunatly the problem is often with the priests. As in our city.

 

[bear06]

Unfortunatly the problem is often with the priests. As in our city.

Many of us have fought these dissidents and won. Be creative, don’t retreat!

BTW, I’m not an adversary of the SSPX. I’m an adversary of satan! I really won’t be posting much. My cubs are keeping me pretty busy as of late.

Miss ya T!

 

[TNT]

…BTW, I’m not an adversary of the SSPX. I’m an adversary of satan! …

Miss ya T!

SSPX, SATAN…it’s all da same.

The goofiest thing about the SSPX:
They pray the Rosary before each Mass. Ok.
Then at the end of it they add a prayer for the INTENTIONS of the Holy Father!
But, they profess that the intentions executed by the Holy Father are destructive of Catholic Doctrine & practice aka Tradition.
How do you pray FOR that??
They pray against their own intentions which are opposed to his.

 

[bear06]

SSPX, SATAN…it’s all da same.

I’d like to point out that TNT said it, not me. Send all complaints to TNT@alightningboltisheadedmyway.com

 

[Thursday1]

Thursday and TNT,
Thank you for your clarifications. They really helped. I am just so frustrated and sick with our parishes where I live and it seems to be getting worse. I was contemplating going to anSSPX Mass nearby just for some sanity and hope, but I am starting to see that that will only add more frustration and confusion. I am truely heavy hearted over the shap of our Church. God help us.

You’re welcome.

I’m just an armchair canonist, but this is one area I’ve done a bit more study into, so I thought I could help.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[Cincy]

TNT
the priest in your news quote has been suspended for some time and was living in Florida when this happened.

 

[bro_brian]

Thursday and Others-

I think a good idea to give a fair shake to the SSPX and their chapels (which I have never attended) as well as their sacraments has been clarified by the Holy Father Pope Benedict prior to becoming Pope:

DECREE OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH (HOLY OFFICE)
Under signature of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect
Known as the “Honolulu Decision” (Protocol No. 14428, June 4, 1993)

Background: The Bishop of Honolulu on May 1, 1991, declared six laymen “excommunicated” on the grounds that [they] had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the ‘latae sententiae’ penalty [of automatic excommunication] as provided for in … the Code of Canon Law.

The “Honolulu Six” had (1) established a traditional chapel independent of diocesan jurisdiction, (2) invited independent priests, predominantly SSPX priests, to celebrate Mass at the chapel, and (3) invited one of the bishops named in the Vatican’s excommunication decree to confer the traditional Sacrament of Confirmation at the chapel. In response to an appeal by one of the Honolulu Six against the decree of the Bishop of Honolulu, the Congregation decreed:

“This Congregation has examined carefully all the available
documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged
in by the Petitioner … are not sufficient to constitute the
crime of schism. Since [the Petitioner] did not, in fact,
commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the ‘latae
sententiae’ penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop
lacks the precondition on which it is founded. This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu.”

This is pretty clear to their status and it seems they do recognize Rome, as that is who they appealed and ordered the excommunications lifted.

I will admit I am not a canon lawyer but this was decided by Rome. That is good enough evidence for me even in regards to Confirmation.

Also there are many orders of the Church who receive their direction and faculties and do not fall under the power of the Ordinary. In these circumstances they work in conjunction with the local Ordinary but do not fall under their jurisdiction but instead respond only to their superiors within their order.

Hope this clarifies.

 

[bear06]

The Honolulu or Hawaii Six case didn’t have anything to do with the canonical status of SSPX. Also, we can’t really point to this case as evidence that Rome or the Holy Father is okie dokie with the SSPX when the excommunications of Bishop Bruskewitz have been upheld. What order is it is that can do weddings and confessions without the permission of the local bishop?

 

[TNT]

TNT
the priest in your news quote has been suspended for some time and was living in Florida when this happened.

All you need do is post the link.
Heresay is really not definitive.
I’m not sure which priest yur talkin about.
The one with 600,000 embezzlement?
If so, when was he doing all this? AFTER or before suspension.
When was he suspended? Exactly. What position did he have at the time of suspension?

 

[bro_brian]

What order is it is that can do weddings and confessions without the permission of the local bishop?

I agree it was not a canonical status decision as much as it was obviously a decision of Rome to not void the confirmations but to instead void the excommunications. Again I have never attended a SSPX service and am not trying to defend them

See the Vatican website which expressly address religious institutes:

Can. 586 §1. A just autonomy of life, especially of governance, is acknowledged for individual institutes, by which they possess their own discipline in the Church and are able to preserve their own patrimony intact, as mentioned in ⇒ can. 578.

Can. 590 §1. In as much as institutes of consecrated life are dedicated in a special way to the service of God and of the whole Church, they are subject to the supreme authority of the Church in a special way.

Can. 591 In order to provide better for the good of institutes and the needs of the apostolate, the Supreme Pontiff, by reason of his primacy in the universal Church and with a view to common advantage, can exempt institutes of consecrated life from the governance of local ordinaries and subject them to himself alone or to another ecclesiastical authority.

I agree that the SSPX does not fall under this but I was referring to other Orders or institutes not started by the local Ordinary ie the older Orders; Dominicians, Franciscians, and many others. Some groups do fall under the Ordinary, if orginated by the Ordinary.

See the Vatican Canon website for clarification:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1Y.HTM

 

[sb981]

TNT, I believe Cincy was referring to your post regarding Fr Gaeke–who, by the way had been on leave from the Archdiocese of Cincinnati since 2000. See below:

news.nky.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20070117/NEWS0103/701170369

 

[bear06]

What order is it is that can do weddings and confessions without the permission of the local bishop?

I agree it was not a canonical status decision as much as it was obviously a decision of Rome to not void the confirmations but to instead void the excommunications. Again I have never attended a SSPX service and am not trying to defend them

See the Vatican website which expressly address religious institutes:

Can. 586 §1. A just autonomy of life, especially of governance, is acknowledged for individual institutes, by which they possess their own discipline in the Church and are able to preserve their own patrimony intact, as mentioned in ⇒ can. 578.

Can. 590 §1. In as much as institutes of consecrated life are dedicated in a special way to the service of God and of the whole Church, they are subject to the supreme authority of the Church in a special way.

Can. 591 In order to provide better for the good of institutes and the needs of the apostolate, the Supreme Pontiff, by reason of his primacy in the universal Church and with a view to common advantage, can exempt institutes of consecrated life from the governance of local ordinaries and subject them to himself alone or to another ecclesiastical authority.

I agree that the SSPX does not fall under this but I was referring to other Orders or institutes not started by the local Ordinary ie the older Orders; Dominicians, Franciscians, and many others. Some groups do fall under the Ordinary, if orginated by the Ordinary.

See the Vatican Canon website for clarification:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1Y.HTM

I concur with this but this has to do with the self governance of their order not offering sacraments to the laity. You need to look at the specific canons on the individual sacraments and you’ll see that orders can hear the confessions of their members living in the house day and night. They still need faculties from the local ordinary to hear confessions of hte laity in that diocese.

Can. 969 §1. **The local ordinary alone **is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful. Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior

.

§2. The superior of a religious institute or society of apostolic life mentioned in ⇒ can. 968, §2 is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of their subjects and of others living day and night in the house

Orders are still bound to the authority of the local bishop concerning the laity in that local. Even when the bishop gives a priest faculties, that priest cannot use them without permission of their superior. The order can grant faculties to priests to hear the confessions of their subjects and anyone who lives under their roof.

 

[bro_brian]

We really are splitting hairs here. The orginal questions was in regards to their communion services they provide. In reality the Bishops are to support the religious institutions and I am a quite certain it is very very rare that they tell an order they cannot hear confessions as their formations aren’t questioned and it would be ridiculious to limit the services to the laity. This is a territory issue and they (the orders and the Ordinary) see different sides of the law much like conservative and liberal lawyers.

The point is I think their Communion and Mass is valid. Obviously I do not agree with them on many other issues and have never attended one of their services, and have no intention of.

 

[bear06]

We really are splitting hairs here. The orginal questions was in regards to their communion services they provide. In reality the Bishops are to support the religious institutions and I am a quite certain it is very very rare that they tell an order they cannot hear confessions as their formations aren’t questioned and it would be ridiculious to limit the services to the laity. This is a territory issue and they (the orders and the Ordinary) see different sides of the law much like conservative and liberal lawyers.

The point is I think their Communion and Mass is valid. Obviously I do not agree with them on many other issues and have never attended one of their services, and have no intention of.

The original question asked whether or not the sacraments were valid.

The bishops do support the religious institutions not in schism. That said, I have seen bishops crack down on some liberal ones in order to protect the faithful (hopefully more will do so). Still, in order to protect the faithful as is the bishop’s job, he is required to examine and give faculties. It all comes down to the fact that the local ordinary is rarely (and I’m not sure if this has ever happened) going to give faculties to the SSPX. This might have something to do with the excommunication decree warning the priests and laity not to support them or else risk danger of excommunication. sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

This is not a territorial issue. It’s a canonical issue. I agree that there Mass and Communions are valid but illicit. I do not agree that their marriages and confessions are valid. There are solid reasons to doubt this and little reasons to support the idea that they are valid. To presume they are valid is very dangerous.

 

[TNT]

…I agree that there Mass and Communions are valid but illicit. I do not agree that their marriages and confessions are valid. There are solid reasons to doubt this and little reasons to support the idea that they are valid. To presume they are valid is very dangerous.

TRUE!
Irrefutable.
Even IF you are SSPX, you MUST confront this issue!
Even the SSPX deny that they have ANY Jurisdiction while at the same time they hold the NO Bp.'s & Pope as having Jurisdiction.​

However, the REAL dilemma of where to receive a fruitful Traditional Confession in an NO world is also REAL.​

So, then the SSPX’r looks at how the Church considers the validity of an E-O Confession Sacrament. It appears for all the world that it is taken as VALID even if illicit (which is NEVER alluded to by the NO Church hierarchy).
Well, then, the receive a VALID Traditional Confession, must a priest go into a Schismatic or hardcore SEDE mode?
Personally, I use to have a “Traditional” NO confessor about 25 miles away. The Bp. moved him 2 counties further away…84 miles.
There is now an indult priest 30 miles away. But you better get there EARLY because the 2 hrs he assigns will not finish the line.
Ie, ONE priest that gives a Traditional Confession & Traditional guidance for 1800 Trad. Catholics.
Makes you think that the Church is interested in making such a Confession closer to impractical than to be “generous” in the Traditional Sacrament of Confession.

 

[bro_brian]

Again we are splitting hairs neither you nor I are canon lawyers and even those who are cannot even agree if they are in schism. Pope John Paul II says yes and Hoyos says no. Regardless, in my mind it is a fruitless on going question. In addition, I did not assume anything. In truth if the local Bishops would actually offer the TLM as the Pope provided for it in it self would resovle the problem although there would still be others who still question even the validity of the indult. I don’t know if this battle will ever end. It is in my mind a pretty stupid. Its like America there are Dems and there are Reps,each one thinks they are right but instead of finding middle ground they choose to fight and get nothing done. The church is bigger than this but much could be solved by letter from the Holy Father that is supposedly pending. We will see. I know I am Catholic I believe you are and I pray for those who are and make bad decisions. I actually knew a Traditional Catholic who once asked me if her recieving communion from a NO in the rest home would get her in trouble with God as she actually questioned the NO Mass and my answer was “God will sort this out fear not God”. Ultimately, this is a territory issue as the SSPX Bishops don’t want to loose their soveriegnty and the local Bishop don’t wan’t them interferring in the service of their laity. Does it not make sense if we can all serve the laity would not the Church be firing on all cylinders? I think so. To conclude, when will the battle end?

 

[bear06]

To conclude, when will the battle end?

Probably at the apocolypse. There will always be strife. I just hate it more when it affects my little world.