What can you all tell me about the SSPX?

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Tone matters VetA.

I am probably more in disagreement with Mark as one who assists almost exclusively at SSPX Masses than you. St. Paul was “all things to all men that he might by all means save some”. There is nothing wrong with giving the truth in doses if you will. If the full truth kills, it seems wrong to “call it like it is”. Our goal is to persuade, not be merely correct. And if people hate us, if we offend them, they are disinclined to listen. It is important to be truthful and amiable at the same time.

I hope my own tone is not perceived as condemnatory of you. I am sure you mean well, but our Lord condescends to consider our frailties, and charity does to others as Jesus has done to us.

---

Mark, do you think my children’s confessions to SSPX priests are invalid? They are not responsible for our decision to take them there. Would you be able to make an exception in their case? Or would you hold that any mortal sins they may have confessed and been absolved of by our SSPX priest are still on their souls? Or would you perhaps at least be willing to confess to not knowing for sure?

Thanks for your consideration.

Rory

 

[MarkThompson]

Tone matters VetA.

Agreed, and on rereading what I wrote I want to be clear that I wasn’t comparing the SSPX to a pedophile priest – if that seemed uncharitable, my apologies. The fact is that Dale Fushek, Bernard Fellay, your average Ukrainian Orthodox priest, and Benedict XVI can all say valid Masses, so “validity” by itself is the barest starting point in the inquiry of whether you really want to get involved with a group or not.

Mark, do you think my children’s confessions to SSPX priests are invalid? They are not responsible for our decision to take them there. Would you be able to make an exception in their case? Or would you hold that any mortal sins they may have confessed and been absolved of by our SSPX priest are still on their souls? Or would you perhaps at least be willing to confess to not knowing for sure?

No, I’m not entitled to be 100% sure. To be clear, though, my certitude may be more or less of a gray zone, but a sacrament either is or it isn’t. Whether or not you or I am 100% confident, their confessions are definitely either 100% valid or 100% invalid. I might be unsure whether a particular wafer is consecrated or not, but it absolutely either is or is not the Body of Christ; there’s no fuzzy “half-Communion” if I really thought it had been validly consecrated but it was actually made from rice flour, or the priest’s orders weren’t valid, or something. As it is, I do feel highly confident that SSPX confessions are invalid, I’m sorry to say. I’m not a sacramental theologian, but I think that would leave your children in the same position as people who confessed to someone posing as a priest, or to a priest who doesn’t bother to say the words of absolution, or maybe as someone stranded on an island with no access to a priest who prays really hard for forgiveness. In other words, there’s no sacrament, but we can hope that God gives partial credit for showing our work.

 

[MarkThompson]

Or to put it another way, it’s Russian roulette with the sacraments. “Sure,” you may say, “I’m really smart and think I’ve got it figured out, I should be able to make it just fine without any problems, the chance of me being wrong on this one is pretty small.” Yeah you may be 90% sure, but in that chamber is either 100% air or 100% bullet. If you are wrong, you’re very dead. That’s a gamble I don’t like.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Agreed, and on rereading what I wrote I want to be clear that I wasn’t comparing the SSPX to a pedophile priest – if that seemed uncharitable, my apologies. The fact is that Dale Fushek, Bernard Fellay, your average Ukrainian Orthodox priest, and Benedict XVI can all say valid Masses, so “validity” by itself is the barest starting point in the inquiry of whether you really want to get involved with a group or not.

No, I’m not entitled to be 100% sure. To be clear, though, my certitude may be more or less of a gray zone, but a sacrament either is or it isn’t. Whether or not you or I am 100% confident, their confessions are definitely either 100% valid or 100% invalid. I might be unsure whether a particular wafer is consecrated or not, but it absolutely either is or is not the Body of Christ; there’s no fuzzy “half-Communion” if I really thought it had been validly consecrated but it was actually made from rice flour, or the priest’s orders weren’t valid, or something. As it is, I do feel highly confident that SSPX confessions are invalid, I’m sorry to say. I’m not a sacramental theologian, but I think that would leave your children in the same position as people who confessed to someone posing as a priest, or to a priest who doesn’t bother to say the words of absolution, or maybe as someone stranded on an island with no access to a priest who prays really hard for forgiveness. In other words, there’s no sacrament, but we can hope that God gives partial credit for showing our work.

Hi Mark,

Fair enough. I believe that you are sorry to say it. I am sure you want my kids to be shriven, and me too for that matter. Thanks for your way of putting it. By the way, I agree that it is very necessary to emphasize that mere sacramental validity is only a “barest starting point” too. Who knows, maybe that is an ideological starting point we could build on? Regardless of the practical merits of that speculation (I am a “Pollyanna” sentimentalist according to my own good wife), I solicit God’s blessing upon you and yours, and your prayers for me and mine.

Rory

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Mark,

Another question which can wait for a convenient moment…

Do you think that the priests of the Society of St. Peter, who were ordained by Abp. Lefebvre, were subsequently taught upon their decisions to leave the SSPX in 1988, that their confessions made while they were affiliated with the SSPX were invalid? I tend to think they still think that their “SSPX confessions” were valid. I have asked frequently but have never heard what church policy is with regard to priests, laity, or the children of laity that “repent” of their SSPX confessions.

It seems to me that if the Church isn’t asking for “reconfession” of mortal sins in this circumstance, it must be accepted as an indication that the Church accepts supplied jurisidiction in these matters as proposed by the Society of St. Pius X. I truly don’t know what Rome insists upon regarding this question. Do you agree that whatever Rome has allowed in this regard, is instructive as to the breadth of the theory of supplied jurisdiction?

Rory

 

[MarkThompson]

Mark,

Another question which can wait for a convenient moment…

Do you think that the priests of the Society of St. Peter, who were ordained by Abp. Lefebvre, were subsequently taught upon their decisions to leave the SSPX in 1988, that their confessions made while they were affiliated with the SSPX were invalid? I tend to think they still think that their “SSPX confessions” were valid. I have asked frequently but have never heard what church policy is with regard to priests, laity, or the children of laity that “repent” of their SSPX confessions.

It seems to me that if the Church isn’t asking for “reconfession” of mortal sins in this circumstance, it must be accepted as an indication that the Church accepts supplied jurisidiction in these matters as proposed by the Society of St. Pius X. I truly don’t know what Rome insists upon regarding this question. Do you agree that whatever Rome has allowed in this regard, is instructive as to the breadth of the theory of supplied jurisdiction?

Rory

The short answer is, that’s beyond my pay grade. I don’t think we know (and I’m sure I don’t know) the contents of the confessions of people who return from the SSPX to Rome. As to “church policy,” I don’t believe Rome publishes a directory of things that must be confessed or questions a confessor must ask under any circumstances; if I had to speculate it would be that confessors treat each situation individually, and might treat the case of an SSPXer like they would treat a Catholic who got caught up with charismatic Protestants for ten years. There’s no standard questionnaire for these things with a Vatican imprimatur.

So, I don’t think that “Rome” either is or isn’t asking for reconfession of sins – I certainly haven’t heard of any such instructions – and, of course, on account of the seal of the confessional “Rome” would have no way to verify what, if anything, a returning SSPXer did or didn’t confess to.

And you have my best wishes also, and especially for your children, who naturally bear no responsibility for the situation. I have no doubt that your intentions are the good, but I strongly urge you to find a reliable confessor whom canon law authorizes to impart the Church’s absolution. Even the SSPX admits that it is in a “canonically irregular” situation, and (which they don’t further admit) part of that irregularity is the canonical disability of their priests to hear confessions and grant absolution. If, as I keep hearing, the SSPX isn’t a separate denomination or a schismatic church in its own right, there is nothing stopping you from going to a priest with faculties from time to time. (What you or he would say is, of course, none of my business.) I just feel like you’re really letting a lot ride on one spin of the wheel (or the chamber) when you start weighing the merits of things like, “Well, I’ve heard informally that people have said that some priests haven’t required . . . .”, and betting your sacraments that you’re right.

 

[Aramis]

Fundamentally, the SSPX are a group not fully aligned with the Church, but not yet fully outside it, either, that is in constant disobedience and has been so for near 20 years.

They have caused some good, some harm, and a lot of confusion.

And they have been negotiating with Rome for years, with almost no change in their stance, and no change in their ongoing disobedience.

 

[snowbee]

I would advise strongly against SSPX as they are disobedient to the Pope. Their sacraments are illicit, so unlawful, but valid. It is considered strongly immoral to attend an SSPX when another Catholic Church is near and accessible.
In other words, not worth the potential damage to your spirit.

 

[pnewton]

That’s not charitable.

Calling someone ignorant is not uncharitable. We are all ignorant of many things. It would have been far less personal to say that you appear ignorant of this or that.

To vetA, we should always care about being charitable, even when we fail. Besides being necessary for Christian interaction, it is part of the rule that we agree to abide by. We must not deliberatly toss aside our promises. On the other hand, accidents happen.

 

[pnewton]

. Do you agree that whatever Rome has allowed in this regard, is instructive as to the breadth of the theory of supplied jurisdiction?

Rory

You mentioned your children. The idea of supplied jurisdiction was never intended to allow one to confess to whomever they wanted. It applies to those who really do not know that the confessor is not a priest with faculties. This would seem to apply to children who do not understand the issue.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I would advise strongly against SSPX as they are disobedient to the Pope. Their sacraments are illicit, so unlawful, but valid. It is considered strongly immoral to attend an SSPX when another Catholic Church is near and accessible.
In other words, not worth the potential damage to your spirit.

Hello snowbee - looks like you’re also a newbee. Unfortunately, most folks on this board will not call an SSPX-basher, like yourself, to task when they hop on and tell us all what is “strongly immoral”. God forbid a moderator would care about it.

I would suggest that in the future, you help us out with some refernces to back up where the church has used terms like “strongly immoral”. Or if it is just the Ecclesiology of Snowbee, just mention this and we can all chuckle and move on to more well-thought-out post.

I do like your new-age phrase “potential damage to your spirit” although I am not quite sure what it means on this planet. My spirits are usually quite high at Mass. In fact, your post is the only thing than has dampened by spirit so far today. Not sure how you could damage it though…

 

[snowbee]

giuseppeTO you appear to be SSPX. The Church isn’t on trial here, but SSPX. Prove to us that you are and have been fully in communion with Rome, including not disobeying Rome in regards to ordinations and sacraments. You can’t.
From Pope Benedict XVI:
An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity…In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, 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.

… You couldn’t possibly truthfully be telling me being associated with such a group is healthy for your spirit? But then again, you would, if you were being misled, you wouldn’t know the Truth.

 

[pnewton]

giuseppeTO you appear to be SSPX. The Church isn’t on trial here, but SSPX. Prove to us that you are and have been fully in communion with Rome, including not disobeying Rome in regards to ordinations and sacraments. You can’t.

He is not SSPX. I do not know if he attends. However I can interject and show evidence that attendence of an SSPX chapel is not disobeying Rome. I linked this letter from Msgr. Perl (PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO “ECCLESIA DEI”) earlier in the thread.

The situation of the faithful attending chapels of the Society of
St. Pius X is more complicated. They may attend Mass there primarily
because of an attraction to the earlier form of the Roman Rite in which
case they incur no penalty.

unavoce.org/resources/protocol-53999/

The letter is linked by CAF and also on EWTN, in case you have doubts. The Church recognizes the pastoral need not to judge those that attend the SSPX harshly. The danger of schism is pointed out, yet in the final judgement over where the greatest danger to the soul lies with the individual. I have never been tolerant of those who attend the SSPX coming here to recruit and encourage attendence to their chapels. On the other hand, judging the attendence of those that do go is equally uncharitable, since even the Church defers such judgement.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

The original post highlights the fact that faitfhul Catholics want priests and parishes that have no jurisdictional irregularities, but otherwise like those of the Society of St. Pius X. Almost everyone here hungers for what in many dioceses is unavailable except with the SSPX. When will the bishops start supplying their own Traditional priests, or better yet, recognize their friends?

There are hundreds of SSPX priests without faculties. Why? For one reason that is now completely resolved in favor of what the Society had been saying since the early 70’s. The Old Mass has never been suppressed. What about Society priests and Vatican II? The bishops themselves don’t even agree with each other about what Vatican II permits and doesn’t permit. For all the bluster about how the SSPX “rejects” Vatican II, when it comes to priestly formation, it is the diocesan seminaries that don’t follow the guidelines!

The SSPX came into being, when traditional seminarians were unwanted. They couldn’t find anybody to train them. If the bishops had been obedient to Vatican II in the matter of priestly formation, Abp. Lefebvre could have retired. When he agreed to sponsor the training of these young men (mostly from France) who sought him out, it was at a time when the French seminaries were emptying. So while the French seminaries were following the “spirit of Vatican II”, Abp. Lefebvre obeyed the directives of Vatican II and the words of Pope Paul VI:

“Let teachers listen with respect to the Doctors of the Church, among whom St. Thomas Aquinas holds the principal place. For so great is the power of the Angelic Doctor’s genius, so sincere his love of truth, and so great his wisdom in investigating the deepest truths…that his teaching is a most efficacious instrument not only for safeguarding the foundations of the faith, but also in gaining the fruits of healthy progress with profit and security.”

—Paul VI, Address to the Gregorian University, 12 March, 1964

Make no mistake, the SSPX would not exist today if the bishops had been obedient to the pope and to the Second Vatican Council in this matter of priestly formation. While the SSPX seminary in the early 70’s was bursting with French vocations thirsting for training in the Thomistic tradition, the jealous French bishops started a successful smear campaign that eventually brought us to where we are now. Most of the faithful don’t know the story. All the faithful know is that instinctively they want sermons, confessions, and the Mass from a priest who knows the faith and who can speak the language of him that was recommended by Paul VI and the Council. When are the non-SSPX bishops going to obey in this matter and give pre-eminence to scholastic theology and philosophia perennis? I don’t know. But when they do, they will know that the Society priests are their best friends, and without further ado, give them faculties so that the faithful don’t have to be afraid anymore.

What impediment prevents an SSPX friendly bishop from inviting the Society into his diocese? Everyone says they don’t have faculties. Why not? Ultimately, it is because of the disobedience of the world’s bishops to the popes and the Council and the obedience of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre.

Rory

 

[giuseppeTO]

… You couldn’t possibly truthfully be telling me being associated with such a group is healthy for your spirit? But then again, you would, if you were being misled, you wouldn’t know the Truth.

I can absolutely tell you that happening, quite by accident, upon the Society of St. Pius X saved my immortal soul and that of my family. That is the absolute and unequivocal truth in my case. Nobody from the SSPX evangelized me or misled me in any fashion. I walked into one of their chapels without any knowledge of them and I am positive that I was guided there by the Holy Ghost. I, and my family, have been spiritually richly rewarded. That is not because I was somehow “rescued” from the Novus Ordo, nor because I realized the ambiguity or the arbitrary application of some of the Vatican II documents, but very simply because the priest at the pulpit taught the fundamental rudimentary basics of Catholicism which I had once learned as a child but had forgotten, or perhaps ignored due to decades of a lack of reinforcement. It was basic stuff like walking through each commandment and precept and explaining what the traditional teaching of the church was on these laws and virtues. It was quite a while before I even thought to consider how the church got to the crisis it is currently in.

I have read, quite possibly, everything there is to read about the situation the SSPX is in and I watch and listen intently to everything Pope Benedict says on the matter. I perfectly understand that the Society does not exist within canonical structure that officially reports through the hierarchy to the Pope. It therefore, cannot claim to have a recognized ministry in the church. The Pope has clearly stated this on more than one occasion - it is a fact of the current state of affairs. He has not asked the Society to cease and desist from ordaining new priests until the matter is rectified. In My Humble Opinion, the Pope does not expect the SSPX to stop ordaining priests nor does he particularly wish them to stop, nor to close down their seminaries, nor to shut down their chapels and schools and report to the nearest diocesan church. Many detractors assume that this is what the Pope implies when he makes statements about the lack of an “approved” canonical structure. But this Pope says what he means and if he meant the Society to shut itself down, he would say so. On the contrary, I believe he wants and needs the SSPX to stay healthy with a tremendous flow of vocations, and to reintegrate them into the church hierarchy. There are currently ongoing discussions that will hopefully, with all of our prayers, lead to a remedy of the current situation.

It is people like you, snowbee, who get on these boards and proclaim the SSPX to be “strongly immoral”, that is the cause of much of the misunderstandings, name calling, and internet battling.

You probably never stopped to consider the implication that since a Pontifical Commission has stated that one’s Sunday obligation can be fulfilled at a Society Mass, the likes of Msgr Perle and Cardinal Castrillion are themselves guilty of grave sin by, albeit tepedly, sanctioning an act that was “strongly immoral”.