Sspx rcia

[Timothysis]

Tim,

The question may only be vague to you and I could care less what some maintain. You said it in the first sentence of your post “Rome has confirmed that it is acceptable to assist at an SSPX Mass…”

If you are going to use my quote then please use the whole thing; "Rome has confirmed that it is acceptable to assist at an SSPX Mass under certain stringent guidelines, such as you are not acting in a schismatic frame of mind and you attend for a desire of the TLM."

Even if there are 100 conditions attached to it, it is a fact EVEN THOUGH the SSPX exercises no valid ministry. And it would be mortal sin if what he really meant to say was that if you assist at an SSPX Mass, you are obliged to immediately go to your nearest Novus Ordo and sit through another mass to fulfill your Sunday obligation.

I don’t even know what this means. The question, as asked and answered in the past, was if a SSPX Mass fulfills the Sunday obligation. The answer was given that IF there are no diocesan Masses available, IF you are attending out of a desire for the TLM, and IF you are not acting in a schismatic frame of mind, then it could fulfill your obligation. We know that answers from Vatican officials have been written to specific individuals in specific situations and do not apply across the board for all. Though you could “care less” what some maintain about receiving communion at a SSPX Mass doesn’t render the point of view irrelevant, either. It is not an insignificant detail that SSPX priest act against the wishes of the Holy See. I have always found it bizarre that SSPX supporters can so easily poo poo the initial excommunications, the suspension of the SSPX clergy and the illicitness of their Masses. It would be a great exaggeration to say that there is less than a major rift between the SSPX and the Holy See.

And as to what will happen if the Vatican “rules against” the SSPX, I don’t think you understand what these discussions are all about. It is not trial where each side presents their case to the pope and in the end he bangs a gavel and pronounces guilty or innocent.

Actually, I think I do understand the situation. The Holy See has declared how the talks will proceed with the intention to answer any questions that the SSPX has regarding the Vatican II documents being reconciled with Tradition. Only time will tell what the outcome will be. Keep in mind, though, that it is the Holy See that is calling the tune.

So call me a whimp for not answering your question about what I’d do, but if you ask me what I’d do if my wife were killed in a plane crash, I also would not have an answer because I have not considered the situation.

I would never call you a whimp for anything and I certainly hope that your wife isn’t killed in a plane crash, but can you not at least consider your position if the SSPX should not be reconciled with the Holy See? Can you not say that your devotion is to Holy Mother Church instead of a single society?

 

[giuseppeTO]

The answer was given that IF there are no diocesan Masses available

I think this is your invention. I have NEVER seen this condition in any ED proclamations.

Can you not say that your devotion is to Holy Mother Church instead of a single society?

Without a doubt, Holy Mother Church before any society.

 

[pnewton]

Unfortunately, while attending their Mass is allowable and valid, the Sacrament of Confimation is not. The Sacrament of Reconcilliation is not valid. Both of these Sacraments are tied to the ministry of the bishop. None of the SSPX bishops have geographical jurisdiction to grant these Sacraments.

SSPX and their supports will disagree and insist on the validity of these Sacraments through a canonical loophole, which those that do not support the SSPX agree exists. By all means, check out their arguements. Check out the answer to the arguements. Then when you know both sides, ask yourself, "Do I really want to roll the dice on this groups instead of sticking to Sacraments in which the validity is not in question?"

 

[giuseppeTO]

Unfortunately, while attending their Mass is allowable and valid, the Sacrament of Confimation is not. The Sacrament of Reconcilliation is not valid. Both of these Sacraments are tied to the ministry of the bishop. None of the SSPX bishops have geographical jurisdiction to grant these Sacraments.

SSPX and their supports will disagree and insist on the validity of these Sacraments through a canonical loophole, which those that do not support the SSPX agree exists. By all means, check out their arguements. Check out the answer to the arguements. Then when you know both sides, ask yourself, "Do I really want to roll the dice on this groups instead of sticking to Sacraments in which the validity is not in question?"

I would bet you a lobster that upon reconciliation, no one will need to be Conditionally Confirmed or be required to make a general Confession covering several years in the SSPX.

If indeed, as you say, the sacraments are invalid, then they must be readministered for efficacy. An invalid sacrament is an invalid sacrament. So the proof will be, as they say, in the pudding. I haven’t heard that the Vatican has done this for any of the regularized former SSPX priests or faithful. Again, we all sit here and pontificate on what canon law says and on the validity of sacraments, but I do not believe the Holy Father agrees with our canon jurisprudence. At least his actions to date do not support your theory.

 

[ibkc]

In the summer of 2008, Father Zuhlsdorf published a Q&A between journalist Brian Mershon and Msgr. Camille Perl, Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED). The Q&A directly addresses the issue under discussion here: whether SSPX sacraments are valid. I encourage everyone to read the whole thing and not just skim it and proof-text from it, but the long and short of it is that:

1. The SSPX is not in schism
2. Catholics do not commit any sin nor incur any canonical penalty for attending SSPX masses
3. All SSPX sacraments are illicit; however, the only sacraments that are both illicit AND invalid are the sacraments of penance and of matrimony. Therefore the sacrament of confirmation is valid in the SSPX, but still illicit.

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/guest-contribution-qa-with-the-pont-comm-ecclesia-dei-about-sspx-schism-and-sacraments/

PCED Confirms Officially: Society of St. Pius X within the Church, Not in Formal Schism; Catholics Commit No Sin nor Incur Any Canonical Penalty for Mass Attendance

 

[pnewton]

1. The SSPX is not in schism
2. Catholics do not commit any sin nor incur any canonical penalty for attending SSPX masses
3. All SSPX sacraments are illicit; however, the only sacraments that are both illicit AND invalid are the sacraments of penance and of matrimony. Therefore the sacrament of confirmation is valid in the SSPX, but still illicit.

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/guest-contribution-qa-with-the-pont-comm-ecclesia-dei-about-sspx-schism-and-sacraments/

PCED Confirms Officially: Society of St. Pius X within the Church, Not in Formal Schism; Catholics Commit No Sin nor Incur Any Canonical Penalty for Mass Attendance

Perhaps you would care quote the part that of the letter that says Confirmations are valid? If not, the OP can do a search for “confrimation” himself. I agree with your first two premises, but they do not support the third conclussion.

 

[pnewton]

I would bet you a lobster that upon reconciliation, no one will need to be Conditionally Confirmed or be required to make a general Confession covering several years in the SSPX.

I hope we will soon know. I also sincerely hope you are right.

 

[pnewton]

Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confirmation is a Bishop. A priest can also validly confer this sacrament if he has the faculty to do so, either from the general law or by way of a special grant from the competent authority.

Can. 883 The following have, by law, the faculty to administer confirmation:

1° within the confines of their jurisdiction, those who in law are equivalent to a diocesan Bishop;

2° in respect of the person to be confirmed, the priest who by virtue of his office or by mandate of the diocesan Bishop baptises an adult or admits a baptised adult into full communion with the catholic Church;

3° in respect of those in danger of death, the parish priest or indeed any priest.

Can. 887 A priest who has the faculty to administer confirmation may, within the territory assigned to him, lawfully administer this sacrament even to those from outside the territory, unless there is a prohibition by their own Ordinary. He cannot, however, validly confirm anyone in another territory, without prejudice to the provision of can. 883, n.3.

 

[ibkc]

Perhaps you would care quote the part that of the letter that says Confirmations are valid? If not, the OP can do a search for “confrimation” himself. I agree with your first two premises, but they do not support the third conclussion.

I think sometimes we need to show a little humility, and to not let our feelings about the SSPX from any side get in the way. You’ll note that Msgr Perl’s responses contradict some of the SSPX supporters’ positions as well as your own, indicating that the situation is not quite so cut-and-dried as the extremes on either side would like to think.

Msgr Perl singled out the two sacraments as invalid but they quite pointedly did not say all the SSPX’s sacraments are invalid. The entire context of the Q&A is clear that Mr. Mershon was writing to have this very concern cleared up, therefore, if all sacraments administered by the SSPX were invalid, Msgr Perl would have said so. And we know, for example, that the sacrament of Holy Orders in the SSPX is valid. No, I think it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that a person may enter the Church via the SSPX. Brian Mershon came to this conclusion, and Fr. Z - who has worked for PCED - agreed. This particular appeal to authority holds more weight than any random opinion presented on this forum.

 

[ibkc]

I’ll add Fr. Z’s concluding comments to put a finer point on this matter:

• … While people can to some extent or reason agree with or disagree with the specific recommendations of the PCED or statements of Card. Castrillon, I would add this caution.

First, not everyone’s opinion is of equal weight. Joe Bagofdonuts’ opinon is not going to be, probably, as good as mine, who have training and experience in these things at a level Joe doesn’t have. My opinion is probably not going to be as good as that of a canonist, etc. Our opinions are not as weighty as that of the President of the Commission which enjoys competence from the Lawgiver, the Vicar of Christ. When the Cardinal speaks, his opinion has weight. Joe really doesn’t have strong position to criticize the Cardinal in these matters, so perhaps he ought to pipe down and listen.*

 

[pnewton]

I think sometimes we need to show a little humility, and to not let our feelings about the SSPX from any side get in the way. You’ll note that Msgr Perl’s responses contradict some of the SSPX supporters’ positions as well as your own, indicating that the situation is not quite so cut-and-dried as the extremes on either side would like to think.

If you think I have shown pride, I apologize. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. I saw nothing in Msgr. Perl’s letter, which I have read many times, that has ever contradicted what I have said about the SSPX. In fact, I have frequently corrected misperceptions about the SSPX, like the validity of their Mass and their acceptance of the legitimacy of the Holy Father. I do not like to see them recruiting among the faithful, as I do not like to see Roman Rite Catholics trying to recruit Eastern Rite Catholics. Such prosytizing is hardly the way to grow when their as so many fallen away out their.

 

[jmcrae]

Um…yes you can.

I don’t know what you would be if an SSPX priest were to baptize you, but it would not be a Catholic in full communion with Rome, since the SSPX have no permission to give the Sacraments.

Yes, they can baptize in an emergency life-or-death situation just like any lay person, but they would have no place to register the baptism at, since they don’t have any kind of Church-recognized parishes. For Confirmation, you have to be Confirmed either by your Diocesan Bishop (the guy appointed from Rome; not the self-appointed guy) or his delegate (a priest who is in full communion with his Diocesan Bishop, who has received specific permission to give the Sacrament of Confirmation).

Everyone seems to forget that the letter from Monsignor Perl was never meant as a public document; it was written privately to a particular individual. Nobody except the original recipient should read it as if it were addressed to himself or to herself.

 

[pnewton]

From Msgr.'s letter:

1. Therefore, all the sacraments offered by Society of St. Pius X priests, with the exception of Penance and Matrimony, [And that is important.] are valid, but illicit, meaning “illegal.” Penance and Matrimony both require faculties from the local bishop, [or other legitimate authority such as a religious superior, etc., but generally also the local bishop if a priest is stable in a place for a long time and working publicly.] which the Society of St. Pius X priests do not have; therefore, they are invalid. Cases of supplied jurisdiction apply to those who are, for example, in danger of death. [That is to say that the Church’s law itself gives the faculty to any priest, even one who has been “laicized” to absolve in danger of death, even if there is present also a priest in good standing. This is because the highest good of all the law is the salvation of souls. Thus, law foresees these possibilities.] Those who read and understand the PCED’s response can no longer claim ignorance regarding the Church’s official teaching on these two sacraments’ invalidity. [The writer is trying to overcome the ignorance, vinicible and perhaps also culpable ignorance of those who frequent SSPX priests for absolution or who go to them to be married. This is like saying: at this point you have no excuse. You have been told. You can’t claim ignorance anymore. From now on, if you go to an SSPX priest for absolution, it is probably not going to forgive your sins.]

So it appears that the Confirmation would be valid, but the Reconcilliation would not.

 

[ibkc]

If you think I have shown pride, I apologize. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.

No, you didn’t hurt my feelings. I’ve never set foot in an SSPX chapel, and do not have a personal dog in this fight beyond feeling grateful to them for preserving certain aspects of Catholic tradition which enabled me to convert. If I am perfectly honest, if I had discovered when I first investigated the Church that all had been destroyed and the mushy Novus Ordo churches were all that was left, I do not think I would have come into the Church.

I saw nothing in Msgr. Perl’s letter, which I have read many times, that has ever contradicted what I have said about the SSPX.

The Q&A pretty soundly contradicts the claim that all sacraments in the SSPX are invalid. The canons you posted would seem to back that up, and of course I assume that the PCED has access to some of the finest canonists in the world.

In fact, I have frequently corrected misperceptions about the SSPX, like the validity of their Mass and their acceptance of the legitimacy of the Holy Father.

Indeed you have, and that’s wonderful!

I do not like to see them recruiting among the faithful, as I do not like to see Roman Rite Catholics trying to recruit Eastern Rite Catholics. Such prosytizing is hardly the way to grow when their as so many fallen away out their.

Well, see, I don’t really see any “recruiting” here. Someone came and asked a question and a couple of the SSPX supporters answered it. In general, trads tend to get run off and/or banned from CAF if they get too vocal. I don’t think you need to worry about some mass movement of misguided newbies getting sucked into the evil clutches of the SSPX.

 

[ibkc]

So it appears that the Confirmation would be valid, but the Reconcilliation would not.

Right. Which is what I said.

 

[pnewton]

The Q&A pretty soundly contradicts the claim that all sacraments in the SSPX are invalid.

I did not say that. I said only Confirmation and Penance. All I know is what I read. Msgr. Perl’s letter sure makes it seem like Confirmation is valid, unless he was have a brain bubble (it was a private letter, remember) and that Penance is not valid.

Someone came and asked a question and a couple of the SSPX supporters answered it. In general, trads tend to get run off and/or banned from CAF if they get too vocal.

Not on this thread, since the OP was wanting and opinion. But it has happened before and, as you noted, they sometimes do get banned.

 

[ibkc]

Everyone seems to forget that the letter from Monsignor Perl was never meant as a public document; it was written privately to a particular individual. Nobody except the original recipient should read it as if it were addressed to himself or to herself.

So you’re saying that Msgr Perl would say something that isn’t true? He surely knew he was speaking to a journalist because Mershon is pretty well known. May I reiterate Fr. Z’s comments here?

• … While people can to some extent or reason agree with or disagree with the specific recommendations of the PCED or statements of Card. Castrillon, I would add this caution.

First, not everyone’s opinion is of equal weight. Joe Bagofdonuts’ opinon is not going to be, probably, as good as mine, who have training and experience in these things at a level Joe doesn’t have. My opinion is probably not going to be as good as that of a canonist, etc. Our opinions are not as weighty as that of the President of the Commission which enjoys competence from the Lawgiver, the Vicar of Christ. When the Cardinal speaks, his opinion has weight. Joe really doesn’t have strong position to criticize the Cardinal in these matters, so perhaps he ought to pipe down and listen.*

 

[DigitalAnarchy]

In the summer of 2008, Father Zuhlsdorf published a Q&A between journalist Brian Mershon and Msgr. Camille Perl, Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED). The Q&A directly addresses the issue under discussion here: whether SSPX sacraments are valid. I encourage everyone to read the whole thing and not just skim it and proof-text from it, but the long and short of it is that:

1. The SSPX is not in schism
2. Catholics do not commit any sin nor incur any canonical penalty for attending SSPX masses
3. All SSPX sacraments are illicit; however, the only sacraments that are both illicit AND invalid are the sacraments of penance and of matrimony. Therefore the sacrament of confirmation is valid in the SSPX, but still illicit.

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/guest-contribution-qa-with-the-pont-comm-ecclesia-dei-about-sspx-schism-and-sacraments/

PCED Confirms Officially: Society of St. Pius X within the Church, Not in Formal Schism; Catholics Commit No Sin nor Incur Any Canonical Penalty for Mass Attendance

I did read the article and what I got from it is most of the sacraments are illegal but valid. Honestly this whole thing is a bit confusing.

I found one “regular” church that does the Tridentine mass the first Friday of each month and also does a mass in Latin every sunday. Unfortunately I work when they have the Latin one on Sundays and the Tridentine is only once a month.

 

[ibkc]

I did not say that. I said only Confirmation and Penance. All I know is what I read. Msgr. Perl’s letter sure makes it seem like Confirmation is valid, unless he was have a brain bubble (it was a private letter, remember) and that Penance is not valid.

Fair enough. So can we be perfectly clear, according to Msgr Perl of the PCED, the *only *SSPX sacraments which are invalid are the sacrament of matrimony and the sacrament of penance. The rest are considered valid, but illicit.

 

[ibkc]

I found one “regular” church that does the Tridentine mass the first Friday of each month and also does a mass in Latin every sunday. Unfortunately I work when they have the Latin one on Sundays and the Tridentine is only once a month.

Once a month is better than nothing! Try and attend when you can.