SSPX Seattle

[Ana_v]

It is because the Orthodox do not administer the mysteries to Catholics.

True … traditional Catholics are not flocking to Orthodox Churches in response to modernism, and a Catholic would create a scandal if attempting to commune at an Orthodox Church, and a loyal Orthodox priest would refuse to commune a Catholic anyway.

However, my question does not refer to the unwillingness of Orthodox priests to administer Holy Communion to Catholics, and the unwillingness of Catholics to commune at Orthodox parishes. Rather, the issue of faculty for administering the sacrament and the canonical issue of jurisdiction.

I recommend this comprehensive article (and recommend that readers evaluate the article it on its own merits, not on the basis of what they think of the publication that it belongs to): ?Are the SSPX Confessions Valid

 

[Domnall]

True … traditional Catholics are not flocking to Orthodox Churches in response to modernism, and a Catholic would create a scandal if attempting to commune at an Orthodox Church, and a loyal Orthodox priest would refuse to commune a Catholic anyway.

However, my question does not refer to the unwillingness of Orthodox priests to administer Holy Communion to Catholics, and the unwillingness of Catholics to commune at Orthodox parishes. Rather, the issue of faculty for administering the sacrament and the canonical issue of jurisdiction.

I recommend this comprehensive article (and recommend that readers evaluate the article it on its own merits, not on the basis of what they think of the publication that it belongs to): Are the SSPX Confessions Valid?

I think that the evidence is totally on the side of SSPX confessions being invalid. However, the situation does not apply to the same way with the Orthodox. The Orthodox are in schism with the Catholic Church while the SSPX are not.

Furthermore, the sacraments of Holy Orthodoxy are both valid and licit. That’s the big difference there. The bishops of the Orthodox church have always been licitly ordained since the Great Schism. The confusion is not the same as with the SSPX.

 

[adawgj]

The FSSP is in communion with Rome

 

[Ana_v]

Furthermore, the sacraments of Holy Orthodoxy are both valid and licit. That’s the big difference there. The bishops of the Orthodox church have always been licitly ordained since the Great Schism. The confusion is not the same as with the SSPX.

I understand that the Orthodox validly celebrate the sacraments (not licitly – those who are in schism and separated from the Chair of St. Peter do not have the right celebrate the sacraments) because they have valid Holy Orders and therefore valid ministers.

But so do the SSPX…

My question then, more clearly worded is this:

On account of what, do priests of the SSPX invalidly celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation? It is not on account of their ministers, who are validly ordained.

If it is on account of lacking faculty, that same objection can be made against the Orthodox, because again, the Church does not grant the faculty of hearing confessions to Orthodox priests.

 

[Portrait]

I understand that the Orthodox validly celebrate the sacraments (not licitly – those who are in schism and separated from the Chair of St. Peter do not have the right celebrate the sacraments) because they have valid Holy Orders and therefore valid ministers.

But so do the SSPX…

My question then, more clearly worded is this:

On account of what, do priests of the SSPX invalidly celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation? It is not on account of their ministers, who are validly ordained.

If it is on account of lacking faculty, that same objection can be made against the Orthodox, because again, the Church does not grant the faculty of hearing confessions to Orthodox priests.

Dear Ana v,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Unless I am completely mistaken, dear sister, when some Catholics dogmatically assert that SSPX confessions (and marriages) are invalid they are, on this matter at any rate, acting upon their own canonical authority as individual lay Catholics. Moreover, this to my mind seems jolly uncharitable, for in acting thus they are making a public judgment on behalf of the Church that those penitents absolved by the SSPX are still in a state of sin? Such unkind assertions are absolutely wanting in canonical weight, as it is up to Holy Mother Church to definitively and publicly make a decision upon such matters and, to date, she has not seen fit to do so.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Tigg]

1. The SSPX is driven by a spirit, as are all organizations and living beings. However, since they have consciously chosen disobedience, and have caused division, they cannot be motivated by the Holy Spirit. Impossible.
2. If you feel drawn to disobedience and division, you are free to choose that path.

My dear Sir: I always respectfully read your well-intentioned posts, but before we judge the SSPX too harshly, I would suggest we thoughtfully and thoroughly understand their position regarding historical precedents and the struggle they have had within their own hearts and minds.

And regarding disobedience, it is running rampant in the mainstream Church today and I believe it infectious to the near point of heresy. People do not obey the priests, the priests do not obey their bishops and have you read Catholic news lately on the dissenting opinions of even some Princes of the Church? Sad, sad times for a Church in crisis and I, like Benedict, pray that the SSPX will come completely back to the fold.

 

[Elizabeth502]

1. There are forum rules that are agreed to when joining. Whoever violates them long enough and/or seriously enough, ends up being banned.
2. The SSPX is driven by a spirit, as are all organizations and living beings. However, since they have consciously chosen disobedience, and have caused division, they cannot be motivated by the Holy Spirit. Impossible.
3. If you feel drawn to disobedience and division, you are free to choose that path.

No, they’re being drawn to Truth and to orthodox Catholicism, that’s what they’re being drawn to, and overwhelming they find it difficult to locate in most parishes. They are being drawn to the one leg of the three-legged stool which is foundational to Catholicism, and finding it less and less: Sacred Tradition. Not little “t” tradition.

Nice that you think you can see into their motivations, but you’re simply wrong. And for those who want to bring up the favorite straw man argument again, they are not being drawn merely to externals, such as the Mass form. They are desperate for the proclamation of unambiguous Truth which their Church proclaimed without confusion until about 1965. And they’re also desperate even for clergy who understands what Truth is and what it is not.

I completely understand where all these groups are coming from. Their motivations are apparent and their actions are logical. And I know some of them personally. I don’t have to rely on internet blogs and my imagination.

 

[Domnall]

I understand that the Orthodox validly celebrate the sacraments (not licitly – those who are in schism and separated from the Chair of St. Peter do not have the right celebrate the sacraments) because they have valid Holy Orders and therefore valid ministers.

But so do the SSPX…

My question then, more clearly worded is this:

On account of what, do priests of the SSPX invalidly celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation? It is not on account of their ministers, who are validly ordained.

If it is on account of lacking faculty, that same objection can be made against the Orthodox, because again, the Church does not grant the faculty of hearing confessions to Orthodox priests.

I would respectfully disagree here for one particular reason; the Orthodox are not part of the Catholic Church and are therefore not bound by her laws. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia
“For the licit reception it is also necessary to observe all that is prescribed by Divine or ecclesiastical law.”

Now, since the Orthodox don’t follow our ecclesiastic law (since Canon Law only applies to Catholics) and since they are a valid, apostolic church, Orthodox sacraments are licit as well.

Or, in standard form:

P1: Either the Orthodox are bound by Catholic ecclesiastic law, making their sacraments illicit or they are not bound by Catholic ecclesiastic law, making them licit.

P2: The Orthodox are not bound by Catholic ecclesiastic law which would make their sacraments illicit.

Conclusion: Orthodox sacraments are licit.

 

[TimothyH]

I’ve read this on other internet fora as well, but no one has ever cited an example. I’m not saying it hasn’t happened, I’d just be interested in knowing if it’s true or just rumor.

Like I said, I don’t disagree with what you. I just don’t see it happening very often (or at all). Generally the bishops who welcome the FSSP into their dioceses are not the ones who would want to force them to go against their charism. But like you mentioned, if a new bishop took over who had different views of the EF, then I could see this scenario playing out.

Also, I don’t know how simple it would be for an FSSP priest to just step in and start saying the OF of the Mass. Many of them have only offered or heard the EF for years, possibly decades. Granted, it probably wouldn’t take too much to learn the OF, but some minimal training would be needed at least.

Agreed 100% that any bishop who welcomes them into the dioces would not want to force them to go against their charism, nor would he want a public controversy over the issue should it arise. That is why I think it prudent that would have been discussed between the bishop and the society beforehand.

I have taken a lot of flak for stating that the society is bound to obey the bishop in matters of public worship and therefor bound to say the OF if commanded to do so, but canon law is clear - for Societies of Apostolic Life, the Bishop has the right to command obedience in matters of public worship.

As to saying the OF, it doesn’t take much to concelebrate the Chrism Mass. That one act, once a year, speaks volumes about the wonderful character and faithfulness to the Church of the FSSP priests who do it ad what sets them apart from the SSPX.

I really need to get to the FSSP parish near me. Maybe I’ll go to confession there this Saturday.

-Tim-

 

[Ana_v]

I would respectfully disagree here for one particular reason; the Orthodox are not part of the Catholic Church and are therefore not bound by her laws.

That is correct, they are not bound by the ecclesiastical laws of the Catholic Church; however, schismatical celebration of the sacraments are by their very nature illicit. Anyone who cuts themselves off from unity with the Holy See, cuts themselves off from lawful celebration.

The canonical question of faculty and jurisdiction as it pertains to the valid celebration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation is best answered by the Church. The Church has not stated that the SSPX invalidly absolve sins. And we should bear in mind that since the salvation of souls is of highest importance, and it the primary mission of the Church, and since invalid absolution of sins is a most grave matter – because it means there are persons who believe themselves to be in a state of grace and are actually not – it is inconceivable that competent Church authorities would delay this long to settle the question of whether absolution by an SSPX priest is invalid. It would certainly be a grievous and grave omission on their part if they know it is invalid, and refrain from publicly stating so, because such an omission endangers souls.

We have to resolve to wait for a public clarification to come to arrive at a definitive conclusion. While I am not convinced that the absolutions are invalid, I would advise person to err on the side of caution, and confess to a Catholic priest whose faculties are not doubtful.

 

[Lormar]

But it has been settled. The laws of the Church are very specific. What more does anyone want?

 

[porthos11]

The canonical question of faculty and jurisdiction as it pertains to the valid celebration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation is best answered by the Church. The Church has not stated that the SSPX invalidly absolve sins. And we should bear in mind that since the salvation of souls is of highest importance, and it the primary mission of the Church, and since invalid absolution of sins is a most grave matter – because it means there are persons who believe themselves to be in a state of grace and are actually not – it is inconceivable that competent Church authorities would delay this long to settle the question of whether absolution by an SSPX priest is invalid. It would certainly be a grievous and grave omission on their part if they know it is invalid, and refrain from publicly stating so, because such an omission endangers souls.

We have to resolve to wait for a public clarification to come to arrive at a definitive conclusion. While I am not convinced that the absolutions are invalid, I would advise person to err on the side of caution, and confess to a Catholic priest whose faculties are not doubtful.

Such a pronouncement is not necessary because it’s very clear in Canon Law: faculties are needed for valid absolution of sins. I know and you know SSPX priests have no faculties. Their faculties are not doubtful. They are nonexistent. Why then is any further clarification required?

 

[Domnall]

Such a pronouncement is not necessary because it’s very clear in Canon Law: faculties are needed for valid absolution of sins. I know and you know SSPX priests have no faculties. Their faculties are not doubtful. They are nonexistent. Why then is any further clarification required?

Agreed. And likewise, those who do not know that the SSPX carry no faculties for confessions are still validly absolved.

Like you said, why would the Church need to clarify something that is obvious? That would be a waste of her time.

 

[porthos11]

Agreed. And likewise, those who do not know that the SSPX carry no faculties for confessions are still validly absolved.

Like you said, why would the Church need to clarify something that is obvious? That would be a waste of her time.

Yes, that is the exception extended by the law, but only where such error exists. I know for a fact that the SSPX have no faculties, therefore I cannot be validly absolved by them.

 

[Ana_v]

Such a pronouncement is not necessary because it’s very clear in Canon Law: faculties are needed for valid absolution of sins. I know and you know SSPX priests have no faculties. Their faculties are not doubtful. They are nonexistent. Why then is any further clarification required?

Refer to the article I posted earlier, it dissects the argument against the validity of confession with SSPX priests. It’s not so simple. You have to bear in mind the existence of supplied jurisdiction, which the Church grants precisely in the interest of souls.

Suppose you go to confession with a priest that, unbenknowst to you, does not have faculties; they were removed. But as you do not personally know this priest, his background, or history, you have no reason to doubt or inquire from him if he has facultires. Are you absolved?

The Church supplies jurisdiction.

 

[Ana_v]

Yes, that is the exception extended by the law, but only where such error exists. I know for a fact that the SSPX have no faculties, therefore I cannot be validly absolved by them.

Sorry, posted my second to last post before reading what you wrote here.

 

[Ana_v]

canon 844 is useful in proving the logic of the Society’s argument. If the Church intends to widen the ability of Catholics to receive the sacraments through canon 844, even to the extent of permitting Catholics to receive them from non-Catholic ministers, it would be inconsistent for Her to then deny valid sacraments to Catholics who wish to receive them from Catholic priests. Under the “experts’” contradictory interpretation of the New Code, Canon Law would actually be working against itself and its very purpose and highest law, which is the salvation of souls.

…]

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

In some cases, official acts have shown that Rome actually does recognize Society confessions as valid. Consider the following account told by Bishop Fellay at the 2010 Angelus Press Conference as reported by Brian McCall in the Remnant:

As most Catholics know, there are certain grave sins, the remittance of which is reserved to the Holy See alone. Under Church law if a priest hears the confession of a person who has committed one of these reserved sins, he is obligated to report the matter to the Holy See within thirty days to receive permission to absolve as well as guidance for the imposition of an appropriate penance. His Excellency indicated that from time to time Society priests have heard such confessions, and that, in every case, the required notification was sent to the Holy See. In each of these cases, the response received from the Vatican was that “all was good and licit” and that the permission for the SSPX priest to absolve was granted.

What inference are we to draw from this? Obviously, the Society priests can validly hear confessions. If the Society priests lacked any form of jurisdiction to hear confessions, the Holy See would have replied that the penitent needed to confess to a priest with legal jurisdiction to hear confessions. By definition, we are here dealing with grave matter and hence mortal sin (assuming all other conditions are present). Yet even still, the Holy See replied to the SSPX that “all is good and licit.” The Holy See is thus making a de facto recognition of SSPX jurisdiction to hear confessions, a position that the Society and a number of canonical experts have maintained for years in the face of what is obviously a difficult legal situation.

 

[Portrait]

Agreed. And likewise, those who do not know that the SSPX carry no faculties for confessions are still validly absolved.

Like you said, why would the Church need to clarify something that is obvious? That would be a waste of her time.

Dear Domnall,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Your last sentence is, I think, an oversimplification as it is decidedly far from obvious. What does admit of no doubt, dear friend, is that Rome, to date, has made no public and binding decision on whether these SSPX confessions are valid. This fact would, at the very least, serve as circumstantial evidence tending towards the validity of said confessions. If the SSPX confessions are invalid, then surely one would necessarily have to explain why Holy Mother Church has failed to admonish the faithful of a real danger to their eternal salvation for over several decades in a public, binding and definitive manner.

The Code of Canon Law per se is not a clear, public, binding and definitive decision by the Magisterium on the validity of SSPX confessions. It is merely a book of laws and therefore it cannot decide a particular case or controversy by itself. That is surely a perfectly reasonable observation, dear friend, regardless of which side of the fence a man may happen to stand on this thorny issue. In order for Holy Mother Church to issue a binding pronouncement on the validity of SSPX confessions, the competent Church authority would be required to issue a binding decision that actually applies Canon Law to the specific factual circumstances surrounding the SSPX. Interweb Lay analysis/conclusions are not authoritative and therefore are not binding upon the Catholic faithful. The claim that certain conclusions are “self-evident” from the canons themselves does not necessarily mean that this is the case, merely that it is the opinion of some commentators that they are - commentators who, I hasten to add, may themselves be far from impartial. Hence the urgent need for an authoritative decision from Rome on this whole complex matter.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[commenter]

It’s difficult to see the point of this thread. In situations where laypeople, in all sincerity go to a priest who they inaccurately believe has faculties, the Church says their sins are forgiven. According to the SSPX, the Church confirmed this even in serious situations. People are concluding that because of the Church’s concern for the lay penitent, this means the situation of the SSPX priest is still up in the air, the Church has not definitely decided.

But people on this thread are aware of the lack of faculties. So are the SSPX priests. Why should a Catholic support a system that has no real relationship to the Catholic Church besides occasional negotiation? Some sisters have been pulling out of the LCWR, because they are tired of the constant arguments, the search for clauses in canon law or other church documents to justify continuing their struggle, none of which involves sanctity. The struggle discussed on this thread is one of many struggles the Church is in.

Look at the larger picture, the attack on the unborn, marriage, and religious liberty. Is the cause of Christianity helped or hindered by the various groups of Catholics whose only relation to the Catholic Church is negotiation?

 

[porthos11]

Refer to the article I posted earlier, it dissects the argument against the validity of confession with SSPX priests. It’s not so simple. You have to bear in mind the existence of supplied jurisdiction, which the Church grants precisely in the interest of souls.

Suppose you go to confession with a priest that, unbenknowst to you, does not have faculties; they were removed. But as you do not personally know this priest, his background, or history, you have no reason to doubt or inquire from him if he has facultires. Are you absolved?

The Church supplies jurisdiction.

Yes, because this is covered allowed by law. This is legal error and the Church supplies jurisdiction in this case. And yes, I know the article you’re referring to and just like other disobedient groups, they resort to gymnastics and unfounded suppositions as primary premises (such as “The Church supplies jurisdiction in all cases” with no foundation at all in the law). This is supplied on a case by case basis. I can’t just waltz into St. Dennis here in Calgary, for example, knowing full well that is an SSPX church and expect to be absolved, unless I was in danger of death and that was the closest church I could get to before I expire.