But I thought the Sacraments of the Old Roman Catholic Church (all 7) were valid (but illicit). So why would the Sacraments of the Old Roman Catholic Church be superior to SSPX?Confession and Matrimony have a public dimension that goes with territorial jurisdiction. The Bishops of the SSPX have no territorial jurisdiction and therefore do not have the faculties to delegate a priest or even themselves the ability to hear confessions or assist as Marriage.
That gets back to the matter I spoke about in another thread, and that matter is time. As time goes on, the number of those in the SSPX who can be considered schismatics will decrease. This is because only the people who were once united with Rome and left can be considered schismatics, children born into the SSPX, and those converting to the SSPX from protestant faiths cannot be considered schismatic since they never had a previous union with Rome. Over time, Rome’s bind on the SSPX will diminish and they will become an autocephalous group just like the Old Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. I have said before time is on the side of the SSPX and the need for haste squarely sits on Rome’s shoulders.But I thought the Sacraments of the Old Roman Catholic Church (all 7) were valid (but illicit). So why would the Sacraments of the Old Roman Catholic Church be superior to SSPX?
And all 7 of the Orthodox Churches Sacraments are valid also.
Because the Utrecht Line and the EO line have actual territorial jurisdiction through their internal unity. The SSPX does not have that right as a priestly society. A superior is not necessarily an Ordinary and their Bishops are not territorial Bishops. Without that capacity of being an ordinary they cannot delegate that authority to their priests. It is possible that they could hear confessions among themselves but it does not extend to the public forum as that forum is overseen by the local ordinary who has what is called the right of vigilance in matters concerning his subjects.But I thought the Sacraments of the Old Roman Catholic Church (all 7) were valid (but illicit). So why would the Sacraments of the Old Roman Catholic Church be superior to SSPX?
And all 7 of the Orthodox Churches Sacraments are valid also.
The problem with their canonical argument is that it does not consider canons 331 and in particular 333 Paragraph 3 which states: There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgment or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.Here is the SSPX position on the doctrine of Supplied Jurisdiction. As one who assists regularly at an SSPX Mass, I regularly pray that the day soon comes when the irregular juridical condition is remedied. I believe that the time close at hand.
Supplied Jurisdiction
Yes, this is a very interesting point. Personally I doubt the latter because it is hard to say that a papal judgment is invalid since he is the head legislator against who’s judgment there is no recourse.It will be interesting to see how the Pope responds to the request to “lift” the excommunications, if he choses to do it. The SSPX bishops feel that the automatic excommunication was inappropriately applied due to the “state of need”, even if the urgency was only in the opinion of the Archbishop.
So if the Pope should “lift” the excommunications, that would send one message. If the determination was that the excommunications were never valid, that would have a different effect.
The reasons that these sacraments are invalid is that they require faculties from the local ordinary and as the SSPX are in schism they do not recognize the local bishop and set up without his approval and with out faculties. Their confirmations are also illicit and possibly invalid (I haven’t really looked into those) as are the anullments that they grant.From what I understand, if a priest is excomunicated, sometimes he is not allowed to teach and give counselling, for the sake of the people. An excomunicated priest is “in need” of “counselling” himself regarding with what he believe.
I guess this is the reason why sspx sacraments of confession and matrimony is regarded “illicit & invalid” by the church. It’s part of the excominication.
Confirmations are valid if done by a valid Bishop as it is a power that resides in the Bishop himself.The reasons that these sacraments are invalid is that they require faculties from the local ordinary and as the SSPX are in schism they do not recognize the local bishop and set up without his approval and with out faculties. Their confirmations are also illicit and possibly invalid (I haven’t really looked into those) as are the anullments that they grant.
I’m sure that some don’t like Peter but he gave a great history of the schism. He also used to be SSPX.
David,The reasons that these sacraments are invalid is that they require faculties from the local ordinary and as the SSPX are in schism they do not recognize the local bishop and set up without his approval and with out faculties. Their confirmations are also illicit and possibly invalid (I haven’t really looked into those) as are the anullments that they grant.
Bear … I think we’re saying that the most recent statements made by Ecclesia Dei during the Pontificate of the current Holy Father say, very clearly, that the SSPX is NOT in schism.I’m sure that some don’t like Peter but he gave a great history of the schism. He also used to be SSPX.
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1392
In case some are saying that they aren’t in schism or that nobody has ever said they were - from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1224
It was unnecessary to issue a statement or to re-validate as the act of formal obedience and reincorporation would cause a de facto retro active action on all the previously invalid sacraments such as in the case of a con-validation of a marriage.Since you’re “looking into” what’s valid and invalid, you might want to comment on the sacraments performed by the members of Campos who, when accepted back into communion with the Holy See, were NOT required to re-marry, re-confirm, and re-absolve years of sacramental practice. Nor did Rome issue any kind of proclamation regarding that situation. You may want to inform the Vatican that they commited a huge oversight here.
You might also want to “look into” the invalidity of the Novus Ordo sacraments where formulas are ad-libbed and/or the presiders (we use to call them priests) do not believe in the transubstantiation (that is the old term for the Consecration that offends Protestants so we sorta dropped it).
For all the canonical precision that the SSPX and their patrons use when it comes to fighting against the judgments of the Church I find it amusing that the same precision is not used when looking at this statement by the Commission.Bear … I think we’re saying that the most recent statements made by Ecclesia Dei during the Pontificate of the current Holy Father say, very clearly, that the SSPX is NOT in schism.
Now I know that REALLY torques many of the SSPX-bashers out there but that is reality.
Mosher,I
Also, you seem to think that all who are united to the Church have either embraced or tolerate the language changes that liberal theologians have tried to impose on the Church. This is very troubling because it speaks to a lack of understanding of the current state of the Church. Too many times SSPX patrons want understanding but they cease to try to understand the Church - this is again symptomatic of the schism that does exist.
You should not imply that the Sacraments of Confession and Marraige were valid. They were, what canonists like to call, sanated. This has has been done over history for Mass returns. It’s the Church providing for the impossible. It would be impossible for the Church to re-marry or hear all of the back confessions. The process of sanation (or to make sane) was used.Since you’re “looking into” what’s valid and invalid, you might want to comment on the sacraments performed by the members of Campos who, when accepted back into communion with the Holy See, were NOT required to re-marry, re-confirm, and re-absolve years of sacramental practice.
This wouldn’t need to be done.Nor did Rome issue any kind of proclamation regarding that situation.
You might want to study the difference between valid and illicit. It is not evident, in most cases, to know the priests intent so we can only focus on matter and form. Very little is required in the form end and is usually carried in the most illicit Mass.You might also want to “look into” the invalidity of the Novus Ordo sacraments where formulas are ad-libbed and/or the presiders (we use to call them priests) do not believe in the transubstantiation (that is the old term for the Consecration that offends Protestants so we sorta dropped it).
The most recent statement was in an article. It was not a Church document nor an official statement.Bear … I think we’re saying that the most recent statements made by Ecclesia Dei during the Pontificate of the current Holy Father say, very clearly, that the SSPX is NOT in schism.
Now I know that REALLY torques many of the SSPX-bashers out there but that is reality.
He didn’t say this. He said there was not formal schism. For formal schism someone must be aware that their position is contrary to the Church’s position. Material schism is when someone doesn’t know there position is contrary. The SSPX thought they were in accord with Church teachings because they thought they had necessity in their corner. The only problem is that the Pope is the aribiter of such necessity and he has said there wasn’t any.I can’t rebut most of your schism accusations. I take consolation that Cardinal Hoyos has said what he has recently said that a **schism does not exist **and the church treats it as an internal matter. SSPX priests have recently been allowed to offer Mass at St. Peter’s. I feel and pray that there is a breakthrough at hand