SSPX sacraments

[JReducation]

Just what, if anything, does all this have to do with the topic at hand?

The SSPX is a Secular Institute. Therefore they come under the jurisdiction of the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes. This raises the question of what rights do they have or not have when it comes to celebrating the sacraments. This has never been clarified.

We know what rights religious orders have and other secular institutes, but what about the SSPX? Who decides how and when they are to celebrate the sacraments? Who and when gives them faculties? When do they receive their faculties from the local Ordinary or from their own Ordinary? Is the superior of the SSPX an Ordinary as is the case with the superior of a religious order or religious congregation, neither of which the SSPX is.

There are other Secular Institutes, such as Secular Franciscans, the Vincentians, the Maryknoll, Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word, Sons of the Holy Redeemer (Transalpine Redemptorists) and the Opus Dei, who have their own Ordinaries. Then there are other secular institutes who are not allowed to have their own Ordinary, such as the FSSP and the Society of Christ the King.

There are some questions of jurisdiction that have to be addressed before the SSPX bishops are cut loose and the suspension of their clerics is rescinded.

Does that make sense?

Fraternally,

JR

 

[cathguy]

The SSPX is a Secular Institute. Therefore they come under the jurisdiction of the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes. This raises the question of what rights do they have or not have when it comes to celebrating the sacraments. This has never been clarified.

We know what rights religious orders have and other secular institutes, but what about the SSPX? Who decides how and when they are to celebrate the sacraments? Who and when gives them faculties? When do they receive their faculties from the local Ordinary or from their own Ordinary? Is the superior of the SSPX an Ordinary as is the case with the superior of a religious order or religious congregation, neither of which the SSPX is.

There are other Secular Institutes, such as Secular Franciscans, the Vincentians, the Maryknoll, Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word, Sons of the Holy Redeemer (Transalpine Redemptorists) and the Opus Dei, who have their own Ordinaries. Then there are other secular institutes who are not allowed to have their own Ordinary, such as the FSSP and the Society of Christ the King.

There are some questions of jurisdiction that have to be addressed before the SSPX bishops are cut loose and the suspension of their clerics is rescinded.

Does that make sense?

Fraternally,

JR

Yes, it does. And the questions you ask are excellent. Thank you.

 

[gilbertgea]

All this speculation and argumentation is interesting, but…

…I’d like to know: What does the Vatican say? Has there been any definitive guidance given? E.g., from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei? (Cf., N. 539/99 Rome, 28 September 1999.)

What does the Vatican say about the validity or lack thereof of the Catholic sacraments of matrimony and confirmation as administered by bishops or priests of the FSSPX?

Semper fidelis,

 

[GodIsSalvation]

For what it’s worth, I think people are making mountains out of molehills on this issue.

I’ll be getting married in an SSPX chapel by an SSPX priest in a few months and the archdiocese where I live doesn’t seem to have a problem with this as long as my fiancee and I follow the right process do the correct paperwork. I’m not sure how the juridical aspects of our marriage will be worked out yet (it’s a little above my pay grade), but I know that the SSPX priest with whom we have been speaking is asking for something akin to a grant of jurisdiction from the archbishop to perform our marriage. As I said, I’m not sure yet exactly how everything will work out, but I do know, after speaking on several occasions to my parish priest, that our marriage will be both valid and licit.

I’ve been pleasantly surprised by how smoothly the whole process has gone thus far. I think that as long as everyone is of good will and willing to act charitably and in good faith toward each other, the overall situation with the SSPX and their administration of the sacraments will be worked out much more easily in most places than many are expecting.

 

[stevusmagnus]

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[t] to do…

The Guardian at Franciscan University did not grant the permission for the EF to be celebrated.

When did this happen? Hopefully before Summorum Pontificum. Because that document gave every priest the right to say the EF without any Bishop’s approval.

 

[stevusmagnus]

All this speculation and argumentation is interesting, but…

…I’d like to know: What does the Vatican say? Has there been any definitive guidance given? E.g., from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei? (Cf., N. 539/99 Rome, 28 September 1999.)

What does the Vatican say about the validity or lack thereof of the Catholic sacraments of matrimony and confirmation as administered by bishops or priests of the FSSPX?

Semper fidelis,

The problem is that they have not officially taken a public stance clarifying any of this. Msgr. Perl in his capacity with the PCED did issue private correspondence stating that SSPX priests have no ordinary jurisdiction and so confessions and marriages were invalid. However he states that in cases of genuine ignorance they are valid.

One SSPX supporter I know, has pointed to the fact that there are other canons in canon law recognizing supplied jurisdiction in the circumstances SSPX priests and faithful find themselves in (common error of law or fact, etc.) that the PCED does not address. This is what John Salza points out in his Q&A that was linked to previously. In addition I have never heard of Rome requiring general confessions of the faithful or priests of other reconciled Traditional communities (FSSP, Campos, Good Shepard, etc.) However, I have heard that Rome issued radical sanations for those Campos marriages where the couples were still together. A radical sanation, I believe, provides whatever defects were lacking in the sacrament originally. In the '88 agreement signed by Archbishop Lefebvre there was a provision made for a radical sanation ad cautalem for SSPX marriages.
This means a radical sanation (to be on the safe side).

On the other hand I’ve heard the Roman Rota has granted annulments to SSPX marriages based on lack of jurisdiction.

In the final analysis their confessions may be valid under supplied jurisdiction, and perhaps their marriages are too. Until Rome comes out with a definitive statement on the matter, I would say the safer course would be to confess to priests with jurisdiction and marry with jurisdiction. Do I think Rome will come out with a statement in this regard? No. Because, most likely in June, the SSPX will be regularized so there is probably no point issuing a statement that would apply, a most, for a few months and may cause roadblocks to negotiations.

That said, if you do marry in an SSPX Chapel, the process to get a radical sanation is fairly simple. I’ve heard that if you go to your local parish and have the priest help you with paperwork, you can get one within weeks and have any doubts about validity put to rest.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

When did this happen? Hopefully before Summorum Pontificum. Because that document gave every priest the right to say the EF without any Bishop’s approval.

No, it was after. Summorum Pontificum gave priests the right to celebrate the EF privately. Not publicly, still need approval for that in some cases.

Also, the document is addressed to the secular clergy, not religious though it does give a religious priest the right to celebrate the EF in private.

Religious order priests, who take vows, are under obedience to their superiors, not under the jurisdiction of a bishop unless they work within a bishops diocese in a public ministry.

 

[stevusmagnus]

No, it was after. Summorum Pontificum gave priests the right to celebrate the EF privately. Not publicly, still need approval for that in some cases.

Also, the document is addressed to the secular clergy, not religious though it does give a religious priest the right to celebrate the EF in private.

No time to research it now, but are there specific sections of SP which state this? If so could you point me to them? Thanks!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No time to research it now, but are there specific sections of SP which state this? If so could you point me to them? Thanks!

It is clear when one reads the document, specifically articles 2 and 3.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Thanks.

Didn’t the Pope state in the accompanying letter to SP that the '62Missal was never abrogated? If so, how does that square with priests not having the right to say the '62 Missal even in private previous to SP?

 

[maurin]

It is clear when one reads the document, specifically articles 2 and 3.

Thanks.

Didn’t the Pope state in the accompanying letter to SP that the '62Missal was never abrogated? If so, how does that square with priests not having the right to say the '62 Missal even in private previous to SP?

One only needs to read article 4, though, to understand that the Priest’s Mass “without the people” means that anyone who wishes to be there, may.

 

[stevusmagnus]

One only needs to read article 4, though, to understand that the Priest’s Mass “without the people” means that anyone who wishes to be there, may.

What’s the difference between a private Mass where anyone can assist, and a “public Mass”?

 

[maurin]

What’s the difference between a private Mass where anyone can assist, and a “public Mass”?

A good question. I don’t know the answer, but if you don’t mind my speculating: maybe a “Mass without the people” is an unscheduled one, meaning one that is not a “regularly scheduled” Mass time.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

One only needs to read article 4, though, to understand that the Priest’s Mass “without the people” means that anyone who wishes to be there, may.

Except no one has a right to be in a religious orders house without the prior approval of the superior.

Our services are not public.

 

[maurin]

Except no one has a right to be in a religious orders house without the prior approval of the superior.

Our services are not public.

I made no allusion to the religious orders.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I made no allusion to the religious orders.

Ah. As that is what I was speaking about and you replied to me, I of course, assumed, that you were.

 

[maurin]

Ah. As that is what I was speaking about and you replied to me, I of course, assumed, that you were.

I understand…I wasn’t as precise as I should have been. mea culpa

for the purpose of clarification, I replied to stevusmagnus, and in that reply I included a quote from your post which made reference to articles 2 and 3 of the Pope’s Motu Proprio. Article 2 references Diocesan Masses. That is what I intended to address, and did so by referencing article 4 of the Motu Proprio.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I understand…I wasn’t as precise as I should have been. mea culpa

for the purpose of clarification, I replied to stevusmagnus, and in that reply I included a quote from your post which made reference to articles 2 and 3 of the Pope’s Motu Proprio. Article 2 references Diocesan Masses. That is what I intended to address, and did so by referencing article 4 of the Motu Proprio.

Thanks, that makes sense.

My guess on how a private mass that people attend differs from a public mass is that a priest can not change a publicly scheduled mass to the EF just because he wants to.

 

[maurin]

Thanks, that makes sense.

My guess on how a private mass that people attend differs from a public mass is that a priest can not change a publicly scheduled mass to the EF just because he wants to.

I would tend to agree. According to the Motu Proprio, article 4, though, it isn’t necessary. The Priest can simply “let it be known” that he will celebrate the Mass at such and such a time, I would speculate.