Summorum Pontificum..Does it apply to the SSPX?

[Melchior_1]

When you put it in quotation marks, it gives the impression that you are citing some authoritative source on the subject. If you wrote it, then it is simply your estimation of the situation and that should be communicated so people don’t get confused. I wouldn’t want people to think the Vatican has issued a statement saying that it is just fine for people to go to an SSPX Mass. I don’t think the Holy See would state it as such.

I put it in quotation marks because grammatically speaking, I was referring to it in the context it is something that could be quotable if it was placed on top. if it came from the Vatican, I would have credited the source.

As an aside, the second paragraph actually does come from something from Rome, although I’m having a brain fart and can’t remember what it was from.

 

[Melchior_1]

Non-emergency baptisms performed by non-authorized persons are valid but illicit. Confirmations performed by schismatic bishops are valid but illicit.

If you need faculties to perform the confirmations, I don’t care who you are Bishop or not it’s invalid.

Do Auxiliary Bishops need faculties to perform ministries in a diocese?

 

[malphono]

It seems that the FSSP and the SSPX are so close, I don’t get why the stubborness has to prevent what would be such a boon to trads and a blessing to the Church. It grieves me.

The FSSP, of course, is a fully recognized Priestly Fraternity, so it does not have the same “irregular” status as does the SSPX. The funny part is that the FSSP splintered from the SSPX, and the SSPX seems not have forgotten.

In any case, while I’m not interested into getting into one the the interminable (until the the threads gets closed, that is) frays about the SSPX, but I will say this:

I wonder if they didn’t miss a great “window of opportunity” prior to 28 February of this year. Seems to me they might have done just that.

 

[JM3]

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2009/documents/rc_seg-st_20090204_note-decree-cbishops_en.html

1…
The remission of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a very serious canonical penalty, but it has not changed the juridical status of the Society of Saint Pius X, which presently does not enjoy any canonical recognition by the Catholic Church. The four bishops, even though they have been released from excommunication, have no canonical function in the Church and do not licitly exercise any ministry within it.

 

[Rich_C]

Alternative POV:

I don’t the SP will actually affect the SSPX at all. It certainly doesn’t right now, they have zero facilities and lack canonical status.

When they come back, I doubt it will apply either for two reasons.

1. They might come back as a prelature like Opus Dei. They’d be playing by a different set of rules then.
2. They might come back as a Society of Apostolic Life, probably with Pontifical Right. Again, different set of rules.

Spot on analysis, IMO.

Also, it may help to remember that the promulgation of SP pre-dated the lifting of the SSPX excommunications by two years. There’s context there.

 

[floresco]

There needs to be a sticky on here detailing the specifics of the current SSPX situation.

“The SSPX performed a schismatic act, however they are not in schism. They hold no canonical ministry or authority within the Church, and as such are only in partial communion. Their Masses are valid, but illicit. Their confessions are not valid, neither are their marriages. Anointing of the Sick is valid and licit, provided the recipient is near death and no other priest/bishop is present”. Baptism, of course, is valid and licit. If Confirmation requires faculties like confession does, their Confirmations are invalid too.

“One may fulfill their Sunday obligation at a SSPX chapel provided that they do not adhere to a schismatic mindset, and they solely go because they love the EF and there is no licitly alternative EF option”.

This is an excellent summary and I agree that it would be helpful to have it as a sticky. I think it could be further improved by including links to the official documents which show that all these statements are correct expressions of Church teaching. Let me know if you need some help digging these up.

 

[devoutchristian]

If you need faculties to perform the confirmations, I don’t care who you are Bishop or not it’s invalid.

You need faculties to licitly confirm, it is not required for validity.

 

[Melchior_1]

You need faculties to licitly confirm, it is not required for validity.

Could you provide a source please

 

[Melchior_1]

This is an excellent summary and I agree that it would be helpful to have it as a sticky. I think it could be further improved by including links to the official documents which show that all these statements are correct expressions of Church teaching. Let me know if you need some help digging these up.

Agreed, links would be helpful. I won’t turn down assistance in getting them!

 

[porthos11]

I root for the SSPX, although I’m not a member…let’s get that out of the way. Maybe that clouds my judgement…I don’t know.

I always thought that SP applied to the SSPX as well, after all…they are catholic. It does not specifically name the SSPX of course. Why would it? At the time, they were…what shall we say?..in full schism perhaps? But now, they are not, so it applies. Right?

Thanks

Summorum Pontificum expressly limits the application to those priests who are not juridically impeded. The SSPX priests are, by virtue of their suspension.

 

[JaMc]

Thanks for the responses so far. I meant ‘root for’ in the same sense that you describe here…I pray for them to be in full communion.

It seems that the FSSP and the SSPX are so close, I don’t get why the stubborness has to prevent what would be such a boon to trads and a blessing to the Church. It grieves me.

It shouldn’t be surprising the the FSSP and SSPX are so close, considering the FSSP started as a group of SSPX priests who decided to get back into good graces with the Church after the illicit consecrations and excommunications of the SSPX Bishops.

If the ONLY problem the SSPX had was the Mass, Summorum Pontificum would have resolved the whole thing. But there are a whole host of other issues they have with Vatican II, mainly relating to ecumenism.

 

[Aramis]

They are not schismatic. You shouldn’t lie.

They reject the authority of the hierarchy of the church, and ignore the rules of the church, and establish parishes that do not answer to local bishops within those bishops’ sees…

Those are all schismatic acts. They give every appearance of being in schism.

 

[pnewton]

Since the SSPX cannot licitly celebrate Mass, no instruction would apply to them anyway. But no, they can not licitly of validly confirm, as *no *priest can without permission from the bishop, except the case of one who is near to death.

Can. 882 The ordinary minister of confir-mation is a bishop; a presbyter provided with this faculty in virtue of universal law or the special grant of the competent authority also confers this sacrament** validly**.

 

[JReducation]

I root for the SSPX, although I’m not a member…let’s get that out of the way. Maybe that clouds my judgement…I don’t know.

I always thought that SP applied to the SSPX as well, after all…they are catholic. It does not specifically name the SSPX of course. Why would it? At the time, they were…what shall we say?..in full schism perhaps? But now, they are not, so it applies. Right?

Thanks

No it cannot apply for a number of reasons.

1. SP applies liberally only to Diocesan priests. SSPX priests are not diocesan priests. They belong to a society of apostolic life. Societies, congregations and religious orders can only apply those parts of SP that the law of their institute allows and only with the consent of the major superior.
2. Until the SSPX submits to the authority of the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life or the the Ecclesia Dei Commission, under the CDF, it does not have the same rights as other priestly societies have. In law, rights are guaranteed by the fulfillment of duties. The SSPX has not fulfilled its duties as a society of apostolic life.
3. The bishops and the individual priests of the SSPX are suspended. No suspended priest may celebrate the sacraments.
4. The Society itself, as a legal person, is not in full communion with the Catholic Church until it is given canonical status. An individual or a community of individuals who are not in full communion with the Church has no one to grant it permission to celebrate the liturgy. Even though one does not need faculties to celebrate mass, one does need permission from the local ordinary. Said ordinary can be a diocesan bishop or a canonically elected major superior. The SSPX does not have a canonically elected major superior, because it has no canonical status. No status = no canonical election. It’s bishops are suspended. Therefore, they cannot exercise their episcopal authority in the Catholic Church.
5. To celebrate mass in a diocese, one must have permission to be in said diocese. The diocesan bishop or a major superior can grant such permission. However, no diocesan bishop nor any major superior can grant said permission to a priest whom the Holy See has declared to be suspended and to have no canonical standing in the Church. No one can trump the Holy See. Therefore, no one can grant these men permission to make use of SP.

Yes, the bishops, priests and deacons of the SSPX are Catholic, but their relationship with the Church is the same as any other clergyman who has been suspended or placed on a leave of absence. Only the pope can grant them permission to make use of the privileges given to other priests. The celebration of the EF is not a right. It is a privilege that can be exercised within the parameters of the law…

Pope Benedict was very astute when he applied the term “extraordinary” to the Tridentine form. By doing so, he sends a message to bishops, religious superiors, superiors of societies and to the curia that the celebration of the EF is a privilege, not a right. Anything that is extraordinary is not the norm. Therefore, it can be taken away at any time without violating justice like any other privilege.

 

[GloriaMaria]

Brother, could you clarify the question of whether the SSPX confirmations would be technically valid? Would a person need to be confirmed again?

 

[Armor_of_Light]

They reject the authority of the hierarchy of the church, and ignore the rules of the church, and establish parishes that do not answer to local bishops within those bishops’ sees…

Those are all schismatic acts. They give every appearance of being in schism.

Yes. Schismatic acts.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

celebration of the EF is a privilege, not a right. Anything that is extraordinary is not the norm. Therefore, it can be taken away at any time without violating justice like any other privilege.

Then the EF Mass must have been taken away, and the NO installed in an official way without violating justice at some point? Please explain.

 

[Sirach2]

Then the EF Mass must have been taken away, and the NO installed in an official way without violating justice at some point? Please explain.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Sirach I’m asking a legit question to an assertation made by BroJR. I have neither the book knowledge of Church history nor the practical background to challenge, if that is what you are whistling about.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, could you clarify the question of whether the SSPX confirmations would be technically valid? Would a person need to be confirmed again?

I don’t know the answer to this. There seems to be some dispute on this point. The CDW has not ruled one way or another.

Then the EF Mass must have been taken away, and the NO installed in an official way without violating justice at some point? Please explain.

The Ordinary Form was definitely officially implemented without violating justice. There was never a canonical obstacle to its implementation. That part is clear.

The EF was never abrogated, as Pope Benedict explained. Having said that, when one looks at the wording in SP very carefully, it is Pope Benedict who makes a change that neither Vatican II nor Pope Paul VI ever made. Many people haven’t noticed it, in the enthusiasm over the discovery that the Tridentine form had not been abrogated.

The first change that Pope Benedict introduced was to decree that the Roman Rite has two forms that are equal, yet different. That’s definitely new.

Another change that he introduced was that is Pope Benedict, not Pope Paul VI who formally declares that the revised form of the mass is the norm for the Latin Church. He states this in SP.

He then makes another change which is subtle, but highly significant. For the first time in history, the Tridentine mass is referred to as extraordinary (no longer the norm). While he does not go as far as abrogating it, he does go one step further than his predecessors did. It had never been abrogated, nor had anyone ever said that it was no longer the norm.

Here is where this gets dicey. There is a principle in law. Anything that is extraordinary ceases to be an obligation. That much is clear. If it is not an obligation, it is an option. In other words, the Church allows it, but she does not require it. Something that the Church allows, but does not require is not the same as a right. It begs the question. If it is not a right, then what is it?