Vatican Allows Nun to Join the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter Warloff
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought that SSPX sacraments were considered by the Vatican to be valid, but illicit. How could it in effect approve of someone taking part in illicit sacraments? - which is what convent life for this sister will in part consist of. Can someone explain?
 
I thought that SSPX sacraments were considered by the Vatican to be valid, but illicit. How could it in effect approve of someone taking part in illicit sacraments? - which is what convent life for this sister will in part consist of. Can someone explain?
SSPX masses are valid, but not licit. However, the Vatican has given confusing signals on what exactly this should mean to Catholics- saying that it would be a good enough reason for a Catholic to attend an SSPX mass, that he could not find a licit EF mass nearby and he/she was especially attached to the EF of the Mass.

SSPX confessions are not valid nor licit. This is really one of the most important reasons to get things straightened out- the salvation of souls- both of the priests and those going to these confessions.

I’m not sure on other sacraments.

If there is positive news in September it will be cause for GREAT rejoicing and thanksgiving.

Pax.
Pax.
 
SSPX confessions are not valid nor licit. This is really one of the most important reasons to get things straightened out- the salvation of souls- both of the priests and those going to these confessions.
:tsktsk: Someone should read some canon law and then try and argue that SSPX confessions aren’t ‘valid or licit’
 
Deo Gratias :gopray: May the Glorious and Immaculate Virgin Mary and her chaste spouse St Joseph intercede before the Lord our God that we may see the long hoped for reconciliation between the Society and the Vatican
 
:tsktsk: Someone should read some canon law and then try and argue that SSPX confessions aren’t ‘valid or licit’
That is quite accurate. For confessions to be valid, the priest administering the sacrament must have faculties from the local bishop:
Can. 969
§1. The local ordinary alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful.

Now, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant of this, the confession would be valid. (See canon 144)

y.
 
Wow, this IS great news! Hopefully this will be the beginning of the reconciliation of the SSPX with Rome!

The captions of the picture of the Holy Father with Bishop Fellay were rather funny, to say the least! 🙂 😛 😉
 
I thought that SSPX sacraments were considered by the Vatican to be valid, but illicit. How could it in effect approve of someone taking part in illicit sacraments? - which is what convent life for this sister will in part consist of. Can someone explain?
Technically, vows are not a sacrament.
 
That is quite accurate. For confessions to be valid, the priest administering the sacrament must have faculties from the local bishop:
Can. 969
§1. The local ordinary alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful.

Now, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant of this, the confession would be valid. (See canon 144)

y.
Regarding confession the new code of canon law states '*Can. 965 A priest alone is the minister of the sacrament of penance.

Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.

§2. A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority according to the norm of ⇒ can. 969*.’

A priest can therefore be granted faculties either by a bishop (the more normal route) OR the law itself.

The canon then lists three circumstances in which a confessions can be valid even if the confessor has not been granted faculties by the diocesan bishop:

'*Can. 144 §1. In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum.

§2. The same norm is applied to the faculties mentioned in cann. ⇒ 882, ⇒ 883, ⇒ 966, and ⇒ 1111, §1*.’ So this canon not only means that those who are not aware of the canonical penalties imposed on the society are validly absolved but also where there is common either factural or legal common error i.e they truly believe the society priests have facultires and when there is either positive OR probable doubt. Considering the mixed messages coming from the Vatican, different bishops and priests over the years as well as the law itself it is clear that one can have at least probable if not positive doubt concering the idea that the Society priests do not have faculties. In any of these cases the church itself supplies jurisdiction and faculties.

Can. 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.’ This canon is self-evident, in danger of death an unapproved priest may absolve sins validly.

Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.’ Again the censure is suspended when there is danger of death but more interestingly whenever a member of the faithful asks a sacrament or sacramental or act of governance it is also suspended and a member of the faithful may ask this for any just cause. Considering the state of many parishes today and the scandalous actions by many in them e.g a Call to action or a call to disobedience, there is a veritable plethora of just causes available to the faithful when following this canon.

It should be noted that these canons would also apply where:
1)A priest believed he had faculties but didnt or had his faculties revoked but had not yet been told
2)The faithful believed that he had faculties but he did not in fact have them e.g a visiting priest, and asked for them for a just cause (there are a veritable plethora of just causes when it comes to confession)
3)Danger of death
4) Even where there is the possibility of the priest not having faculties i.e a visiting priest, as long as there is positive or probable doubt the church supplies jurisdiction

The canons apply more ordinarily to visiting priests, other priests under censure or even laicised priests but can also be applied to the society.

And so far as I know the church has not made a definitive statement on whether the sacraments celebrated by the society, in particular confession are invalid, though I may be wrong.

Regardless, I’m not going to derail this thread anymore and will merely prayer for the success of matters on the 14th of September :gopray:
 
It should be noted that these canons would also apply where:
1)A priest believed he had faculties but didnt or had his faculties revoked but had not yet been told
2)The faithful believed that he had faculties but he did not in fact have them e.g a visiting priest, and asked for them for a just cause (there are a veritable plethora of just causes when it comes to confession)
With the statement by the pope that the SSPX have no ministerial function within the Church neither of these would apply.
 
With the statement by the pope that the SSPX have no ministerial function within the Church neither of these would apply.
a) It was a statement by a cardinal not the pope and
b)If you examine the canons that argument doesn’t hold up and
c) Any one of the canons bar the danger of death canon would be sufficient to make SSPX confessions valid, as they would for a visiting priest or other priests under censure

And again I state that the church has not officialy stated that their sacraments are invalid, as well it couldnt without contradicting canon law.
 
a) It was a statement by a cardinal not the pope and
b)If you examine the canons that argument doesn’t hold up and
c) Any one of the canons bar the danger of death canon would be sufficient to make SSPX confessions valid, as they would for a visiting priest or other priests under censure

And again I state that the church has not officialy stated that their sacraments are invalid, as well it couldnt without contradicting canon law.
Actually, it was the Holy Father himself who stated that the ministers of the SSPX do not exercise any legitimate ministry in the Church, due to not having any canonical status. Here’s the vatican document which states this. Scroll down to the third paragraph. It’s the last few sentences of this paragraph which explains it:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

It’s the Holy Father who is the final authority in interpreting canon law.
 
Actually, it was the Holy Father himself who stated that the ministers of the SSPX do not exercise any legitimate ministry in the Church, due to not having any canonical status. Here’s the vatican document which states this. Scroll down to the third paragraph. It’s the last few sentences of this paragraph which explains it:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

It’s the Holy Father who is the final authority in interpreting canon law.
Thanks for the correction, but that doesn’t deal with the canons nor does it state their sacraments are invalid.
 
a) It was a statement by a cardinal not the pope and
Just by reading Pope Benedict XVI’s Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Remission of the Excommunication of the Four Bishops Consecrated by Archibshop Lefebvre

You will see clearly that Pope Benedict clearly says, “… the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”

So you are wrong when you say that it was not a statement of the pope.
And again I state that the church has not officialy stated that their sacraments are invalid, as well it couldnt without contradicting canon law.
I think the Church did make a statement with the Campos Brazil group when they left the SSPX and reunited with the Church, their sacraments were made valid by radical sanation.

Be seeing how you get the very basic fact of what the pope said wrong why should we take your interpretation on Canon Law?
 
Just by reading Pope Benedict XVI’s Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Remission of the Excommunication of the Four Bishops Consecrated by Archibshop Lefebvre

You will see clearly that Pope Benedict clearly says, “… the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”

So you are wrong when you say that it was not a statement of the pope.

I think the Church did make a statement with the Campos Brazil group when they left the SSPX and reunited with the Church, their sacraments were made valid by radical sanation.

Be seeing how you get the very basic fact of what the pope said wrong why should we take your interpretation on Canon Law?
A rather sad and pointless ad hominem attack, as for it being my opinion its not, its the opinion of the society and several others. If you can’t address the facts then simply admit that rather than make unfounded assertions about the society which you can’t back up with facts. As for the brazilian group, they weren’t part of the SSPX, a paralell movement but not the same. Frankly the argument is pointless, september 14th will decide what the Vatican believes one way or the other 🙂

So far I’ve pointed out several relevant canons interpreted in the way I do by several prominent canonists and all you have done is resort to ad hominem attacks or state your opinion. If you’re capable of going beyond ad hominem you’re more than welcome to look at the study here which references both codes of canon law and numerous prominent canonists to support its view.
 
Thanks for the correction, but that doesn’t deal with the canons nor does it state their sacraments are invalid.
J.R made an excellent point on this forum. The Holy Father is the living law of the Church. He decides when laws are applicable etc. The SSPX argue that they have a supplied jurisdiction due to a crisis in the Church. The Holy Father says there is no crisis and that the SSPX do not have a legitimate and active ministry in the Church.

You cannot use the law when the law-giver says it’s not working for you.
 
J.R made an excellent point on this forum. The Holy Father is the living law of the Church. He decides when laws are applicable etc. The SSPX argue that they have a supplied jurisdiction due to a crisis in the Church. The Holy Father says there is no crisis and that the SSPX do not have a legitimate and active ministry in the Church.

You cannot use the law when the law-giver says it’s not working for you.
Not if you’re an ultra montanist it doesnt but I’m not and neither are any of the theologians or canonists I cite.And before someone decides that that means I’m attacking the Vatican the exact limits of papal power is a contentious issue and one which Catholics are at liberty to discuss regardless of what some may think.Indeed its an issue that even popes have had different opinions on. However I digress if people want to discuss that they should start another thread
 
It’s not ultramontanism, it’s due of the Bishop of Rome as the leader of the universal Church.
 
It’s not ultramontanism, it’s due of the Bishop of Rome as the leader of the universal Church.
That’s you’re opinion but Newman and others also believed they were giving the papacy its dues and their opinions differ from yours.
 
That’s you’re opinion but Newman and others also believed they were giving the papacy its dues and their opinions differ from yours.
You know Archbishop Lefebvre was strongly in favour of papal supremacy over collegiality :coffeeread:?
 
You know Archbishop Lefebvre was strongly in favour of papal supremacy over collegiality :coffeeread:?
If you want a persons opinion on a subject its always best to read what he wrote not what you think he wrote or what you heard he wrote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top