Baptisms would be valid but confirmations, confessions, and marriages would invalid as they require faculties granted from the local bishop which no SSPX priest has. Confessions in the case of emergency (such as death) would still be valid as that does not require faculties.
Confirmation would be valid if done by a SSPX bishop; Eastern Orthodox Chrismations are valid, and their priests do not have faculties from a Catholic bishop.
Because an orthodox priest is preforming the chrismation on one of his faithful and not on a Catholic.
I do not know to many of the details, but I know of someone who was at a parish that broke away from its diocese to stick with the 1962 Missal back around the time of the change, when they came back, such a document did come out. It basically said all confessions and marriages were valid. It should be noted that the person I know was confirmed by one of the SSPX bishops, and he said his confirmation was always considered valid.
I have been wondering that too.
You raise an excellent question. I believe it is best if we answer it within the context of the term “Church”. A Church is a community of believers headed by a bishop. To head a local Church, the bishop must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
You should probably also tell the TAC “priests” and “bishops” to stop “saying Mass” and “hearing confessions” if they want to be in full communion with the Church as their Holy Orders are not valid.This is a little off the beaten path. I was looking at the title of this thread and there was something that was bothering me; but I couldn’t tell what it was. I finally figured it out.
The sacraments do not belong to the SSPX. They belong to the Church. The question is sacraments conferred by the clergy of the SSPX.
To the best of my knowledge the clergy of the SSPX are still suspended. Therefore, as Brother David said, they do not have faculties for marriage and absolution (except in emergencies). Though marriage can be repaired through radical sanation.
The greatest concern I have is that the bishops of the SSPX, should order their priests and deacons not to witness marriages and their priests not to hear confessions. If they are again in communion with the Church, they must act accordingly.
Fraternally,
JR
Unfortunately, TAC is not in communion with the See of Peter. Until that happens, there is not much that we can tell their bishops, because we have no jurisdiction. But since the four SSPX bishops are again in communion with the Apostolic See, they must act like it.
I think this issue is why many have speculated that the regularization may involve the granting of personal prelature or something similar so that there won’t be any confusion regarding overlapping jurisdictions and such.You raise an excellent question. I believe it is best if we answer it within the context of the term “Church”. A Church is a community of believers headed by a bishop. To head a local Church, the bishop must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
That being said, since the local diocese is a real Church and its head is a real successor to the Apostles, because he’s a bishop. A bishop does not need permission to grant or deny faculties to anyone in his diocese. He makes that move motu proprio, his own decree. There is no right of appeal over the head of a local bishop. The Bishop of Rome cannot overrule a local bishop unless there is evidence of wrong-doing. That would have to be a violation of Church law, civil law, heresy or apostasy.
The only place where a bishop does not have authority is in a house of religious men. The major superior grants the faculties or he may allow the local superior to grant them.
Since the SSPX are not religious, they do not have Pontifical Rights as do Dominicans, Franciscans, Trappists, Benedictines, Carmelites or Jesuits.
JR
Just an added note. This is because the major superior is the ordinary for all of the houses of the order, not the local bishop. But this is only for within the house. The local bishop still has say for any publicly celebrated sacraments.
That’s why I said in my original post “in the religious house”. This does not apply to any ministry that involves the diocese or for the diocese.
Just what, if anything, does all this have to do with the topic at hand?That’s why I said in my original post “in the religious house”. This does not apply to any ministry that involves the diocese or for the diocese.
An excellent example of this was Franciscan University. There were complaints because the Franciscan Friars would not embrace the Extraordinary Form on the campus. The Guardian explained that the Council of Franciscan Ministers General had decided to grant the permission on a case by case basis, within their houses, which they have the righ to do.
The Guardian at Franciscan University did not grant the permission for the EF to be celebrated. Some students and faculty members took their case to the local bishop. The local bishop explained that all Franciscans are of Pontifical Right, have their own Ordinary within the community, and that the University is not under the jurisdiction of the diocese but of the International Council of Franciscan Ministers General. Many people did not understand why the bishop could not order the friars to celebrate the EF for them.
It was also explained that this was the decision of that particular Guardian, not a decision of the Franciscan Orders. The Orders had left that decision to be made by the Guardians. People quickly accused the bishop of being weak.
I believe that more education is needed when a religious community enters the picture so that people know what to expect or not expect.
Fraternally,
JR
Can the Pope perform a radical sanation for SSPX marriages that were based on SSPX-granted annulments, or does divine law require that all SSPX-granted annulments must be reinvestigated by lawful Church tribunals?