Why is Orthodox Confession Valid but not SSPX

[FrDavid96]

Dearest Father David, bless,

I agree with everything you’ve written, but I have heavy reservations about this:

Is it not more correct to say that Christ gave the keys to PRIMARILY to St. Peter, and THROUGH Peter to the other Apostles (i.e., Peter shared the keys, as Christ intended)? And, naturally, that the keys could not be used by the other Apostles apart from St. Peter.

In that case, we’re saying the same thing. Christ Himself gave the Keys to Peter. Saying that they pass through Peter to the other Apostles (and, yes, their successors) doesn’t negate that they were given only to Peter—on the contrary, saying that they pass “through” Peter simply means that they go “from” Peter “to” the others.
If you write me a letter and mail it to me,
I can say that the letter came “through” the postal service
or I can say that the letter went from you, to the PO, then to me.
It’s all the same.

That the other Apostles and bishops also possessed/possess the keys is a sure Tradition of the Church. This was the teaching of Pope St. Leo the Great, and explicitly affirmed by Lateran IV. Even the Traditional Rite of consecration for a bishop had an explicit request for the bishop to be granted the keys.

Without a doubt. Sure, they possess them, but ultimately they always come from/through Peter.

My concern (coming from an Orthodox background) is that if the bishops also do not possess the keys (albeit through Peter and always in communion with his successor), then their relationship to the Pope is nothing more than the relationship of a priest to his bishop.

By no means. First, they do possess the Power of the Keys (though ultimately from Peter). Secondly, remember that we’re only discussing one very narrow topic here.

Also, realize that the same thing can be said about any pope. No pope (save Peter) received the Keys directly from Christ. All popes only have the Keys because they passed from Christ through Peter down to the current pope (whoever he might be, in AD 500 or AD 5000).

What if I were to say that the only reason why the current Pope Francis can absolve from sins is because Christ gave the Power of the Keys to St. Peter? Would everyone agree with that? I would venture to guess that even HH Francis himself would agree.

If we look at that sentence all by itself:
The reason why the current Pope Francis can absolve from sins is because Christ gave the Power of the Keys to St. Peter.

I hardly think anyone would disagree. Now, that doesn’t diminish Pope Francis in any way. It doesn’t make his ministry any less legitimate—not by one iota. So, if saying that does not reduce the ministry of Pope Francis, why would it diminish the ministry of the Orthodox bishops or priests?

Thoughts?

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Thank you Father David. That helps quite a lot. My interest in this wasn’t for SSPX recognition but wanting to understand the sense of why the Catholic Church recongizes the validity of Orthodox confession.

Does the Catholic Church recognize confession from High Anglicanism? I ask this because they are very similar to the Orthodox. They have a jurisdiction. Their church’s look nearly identical to a Catholic Church (so I am told) and they have Bishops and Priests.

 

[PJM]

=FrDavid96;11688642]Yes and no. Please read.

In the immediate sense, they exercise their ministry because of 2 things: Apostolic Succession (ie valid ordination as bishops) and their Communion with the other bishops, including especially the Successor of Peter.

A few references, and I’ll underline some parts.

Lumen Gentium #21
But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.
Catechism:
1559 "One is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of the sacramental consecration and by the hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college…
Canon Law:
Can. 375 §1. Bishops, who by divine institution succeed to the place of the Apostles through the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, are constituted pastors in the Church, so that they are teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship, and ministers of governance.
§2. Through episcopal consecration itself, bishops receive with the function of sanctifying also the functions of teaching and governing; by their nature, however, these can only be exercised in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.

As we all know, any man who receives episcopal ordination from a validly ordained bishop becomes a validly ordained bishop himself (there’s no doubt about it). But ordination itself does not make that valid bishop a legitimate bishop. In order to legitimately exercise the office to which he was ordained, he must be in communion with the “head and members of the college”–meaning the pope and the other bishops.

I’ll also ask that you read what I wrote earlier in this thread, and I’ll quote it:
Christ gave the Keys to Peter alone (this is an important point). Only to Peter, and by extension, to Peter’s successors. Now, for many different reasons (some spiritual, some practical), the Power of the Keys “must” be given to other priests. In the grand scheme of things, in terms of the entire economy of salvation, ultimately all power to absolve comes from the Successor to Peter. Aside: Since that was misunderstood in a recent post, let me explain that I’m speaking in very general terms here. I am NOT saying that a diocesan bishop needs a letter from the Pope granting him faculties to absolve. I’m saying that as a matter of principle, all faculties to absolve come from the Successor to Peter.

Now, I’ve taken the liberty of underlining the point I made earlier.

Keep in mind that what I’m saying in that post, (and repeating here) is that I’m talking about the fact that in terms of Christian Salvation as a whole (the whole, big picture) the ultimate source of absolution is first Christ Himself, then secondly that Christ gave the Power of the Keys to Peter (and Peter alone).

Now, in this context, I am not addressing the specific question of faculties as such. I’m not talking about canon law, therefore I’m not proposing that a bishop needs a letter of faculties from the Pope to absolve. There’s a reason why I put “NOT” in all-caps the first time. That’s a critical explanation for me to make: I’m talking about the entire “economy of salvation.” I’m talking about Confession as a Sacrament between the 2 Comings of Christ. Big picture. Broad brush—as broad as it gets.

Switching from the “big picture” to a more narrow point of discussion:

Now, in more practical terms, we all know that a pope can excommunicate a bishop (sad, but true that it happens sometimes). While we might sometimes disagree (yes, even with the pope) in an individual case, I think it’s safe to say that we can all agree that the pope has legitimate authority to excommunicate a bishop. Right? Part of excommunication means that the bishop no longer has any ability to absolve (save danger of death). So in a case like this, the pope does indeed withdraw from that validly ordained bishop the faculties to absolve. Now, if need be, I can show the relevant canons, but I don’t see the point. I do believe it’s safe to say that if the pope excommunicates a bishop, that bishop loses his faculties to absolve. I doubt that anyone disagrees with this.
When we look at it that way, it’s clear that the pope can take away the faculties to absolve.

However, if we say that the faculties come only (and exclusively) from valid ordination and a flock (which could, theoretically be even just enough people to fill a small room) then that would mean that the pope cannot withdraw the faculties from a bishop. But we know that’s not the case because we know that popes can, and indeed do, actually do this.

What say you?

Thank you Father, VERY informative:thumbsup:
God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[Vico]

saintjohnxxiii

No, due to Invalid Orders.

The Apostolicae Curae of Pope Leo XIII (1896) states that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void” .

You can readily see the difference between Catholic teaching and Anglican, from Anglican Article 25 of On The Sacraments:Those five commonly called Sacraments—that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction—are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you Father David. That helps quite a lot. My interest in this wasn’t for SSPX recognition but wanting to understand the sense of why the Catholic Church recongizes the validity of Orthodox confession.

Does the Catholic Church recognize confession from High Anglicanism? I ask this because they are very similar to the Orthodox. They have a jurisdiction. Their church’s look nearly identical to a Catholic Church (so I am told) and they have Bishops and Priests.

No. Because they have no valid ordination. Their attempts at ordination are null and void, and therefore no other questions matter.

We have to be careful about how we use the word “jurisdiction.” Anyone can setup a storefront church and claim “jurisdiction” (and the Church would accept that, but only in a very limited sense, and not in any way for Confession).

Jurisdiction (or faculties, as the case may be) applies if we’re talking about an individual priest, but we have to understand that just because someone can claim jurisdiction (of some kind) that doesn’t make attempts at sacraments valid.

 

[porthos11]

Yes and no. Please read.

In the immediate sense, they exercise their ministry because of 2 things: Apostolic Succession (ie valid ordination as bishops) and their Communion with the other bishops, including especially the Successor of Peter.

A few references, and I’ll underline some parts.

Lumen Gentium #21
But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.
Catechism:
1559 "One is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of the sacramental consecration and by the hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college…
Canon Law:
Can. 375 §1. Bishops, who by divine institution succeed to the place of the Apostles through the Holy Spirit who has been given to them, are constituted pastors in the Church, so that they are teachers of doctrine, priests of sacred worship, and ministers of governance.
§2. Through episcopal consecration itself, bishops receive with the function of sanctifying also the functions of teaching and governing; by their nature, however, these can only be exercised in hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.

As we all know, any man who receives episcopal ordination from a validly ordained bishop becomes a validly ordained bishop himself (there’s no doubt about it). But ordination itself does not make that valid bishop a legitimate bishop. In order to legitimately exercise the office to which he was ordained, he must be in communion with the “head and members of the college”–meaning the pope and the other bishops.

I’ll also ask that you read what I wrote earlier in this thread, and I’ll quote it:
Christ gave the Keys to Peter alone (this is an important point). Only to Peter, and by extension, to Peter’s successors. Now, for many different reasons (some spiritual, some practical), the Power of the Keys “must” be given to other priests. In the grand scheme of things, in terms of the entire economy of salvation, ultimately all power to absolve comes from the Successor to Peter. Aside: Since that was misunderstood in a recent post, let me explain that I’m speaking in very general terms here. I am NOT saying that a diocesan bishop needs a letter from the Pope granting him faculties to absolve. I’m saying that as a matter of principle, all faculties to absolve come from the Successor to Peter.

Now, I’ve taken the liberty of underlining the point I made earlier.

Keep in mind that what I’m saying in that post, (and repeating here) is that I’m talking about the fact that in terms of Christian Salvation as a whole (the whole, big picture) the ultimate source of absolution is first Christ Himself, then secondly that Christ gave the Power of the Keys to Peter (and Peter alone).

Now, in this context, I am not addressing the specific question of faculties as such. I’m not talking about canon law, therefore I’m not proposing that a bishop needs a letter of faculties from the Pope to absolve. There’s a reason why I put “NOT” in all-caps the first time. That’s a critical explanation for me to make: I’m talking about the entire “economy of salvation.” I’m talking about Confession as a Sacrament between the 2 Comings of Christ. Big picture. Broad brush—as broad as it gets.

Switching from the “big picture” to a more narrow point of discussion:

Now, in more practical terms, we all know that a pope can excommunicate a bishop (sad, but true that it happens sometimes). While we might sometimes disagree (yes, even with the pope) in an individual case, I think it’s safe to say that we can all agree that the pope has legitimate authority to excommunicate a bishop. Right? Part of excommunication means that the bishop no longer has any ability to absolve (save danger of death). So in a case like this, the pope does indeed withdraw from that validly ordained bishop the faculties to absolve. Now, if need be, I can show the relevant canons, but I don’t see the point. I do believe it’s safe to say that if the pope excommunicates a bishop, that bishop loses his faculties to absolve. I doubt that anyone disagrees with this.
When we look at it that way, it’s clear that the pope can take away the faculties to absolve.

However, if we say that the faculties come only (and exclusively) from valid ordination and a flock (which could, theoretically be even just enough people to fill a small room) then that would mean that the pope cannot withdraw the faculties from a bishop. But we know that’s not the case because we know that popes can, and indeed do, actually do this.

What say you?

I say I can’t argue with Lumen Gentium.

The only reasonable conclusion I could draw is that the Orthodox, being actual, historic, apostolic churches with valid holy Orders which at one time had full communion with Peter. When the schism broke, their bishops retained their holy Orders and jurisdiction (and therefore the ability to grant faculties) as they did not lose their character as true bishops over true particular churches. Since the successor of Peter never withdrew his recognition over their jurisdiction, I would guess this is how they retain the power to grant faculties for valid confession.

The SSPX have nothing of the sort. They have valid bishops, but those are bishops without sees (and are suspended), so they have no power of governance at all. The priests who serve at their chapels and the faithful who attend are subject to the local Ordinary, not to the SSPX bishop, and therefore faculties must come from the former, not the latter.

Do I have it right?

 

[FrDavid96]

I say I can’t argue with Lumen Gentium.

The only reasonable conclusion I could draw is that the Orthodox, being actual, historic, apostolic churches with valid holy Orders which at one time had full communion with Peter. When the schism broke, their bishops retained their holy Orders and jurisdiction (and therefore the ability to grant faculties) as they did not lose their character as true bishops over true particular churches. Since the successor of Peter never withdrew his recognition over their jurisdiction, I would guess this is how they retain the power to grant faculties for valid confession.

The SSPX have nothing of the sort. They have valid bishops, but those are bishops without sees (and are suspended), so they have no power of governance at all. The priests who serve at their chapels and the faithful who attend are subject to the local Ordinary, not to the SSPX bishop, and therefore faculties must come from the former, not the latter.

Do I have it right?

Yes.

(If you were writing a paper, I might suggest some editing but that’s not the case.)

 

[Vico]

… faculties must come from the former, not the latter.

Do I have it right?

Pope Pius XI, in the Encyclical Mortalium Animos (1928) wrote:

1. And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: “That they all may be one… And there shall be one fold and one shepherd,”[14] with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. This, Venerable Brethren, is what is commonly said. There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ.

…
11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful”?[25] Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”[26]

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

 

[FrDavid96]

Pope Pius XI, in the Encyclical Mortalium Animos (1928) wrote:
…
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

Vico,

Originally Posted by porthos11
… faculties must come from the former, not the latter.

Do I have it right?

the “former” refers to a legitimate Catholic Ordinary.

the “latter” refers to an irregular bishop.

As I see it, he has it right.

What I don’t understand is: do you agree, or disagree, or neither?

Also, there’s quite a bit in that quote from Pius XI. What specifically is the purpose of the quote?

 

[Vico]

Vico,

the “former” refers to a legitimate Catholic Ordinary.

the “latter” refers to an irregular bishop.

As I see it, he has it right.

What I don’t understand is: do you agree, or disagree, or neither?

Also, there’s quite a bit in that quote from Pius XI. What specifically is the purpose of the quote?

That the “primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome”, and that is the source of faculties. Also, the SSPX are in schism, so what Pope Pius XI says there is applicable.

 

[xavier12]

Hi, I just wonder, if Orthodox sacraments are valid (including the Penance), what makes them different with us? I mean, since their Sacrament of Penance is valid, then they can die in a blessed condition, right?

 

[Vico]

Hi, I just wonder, if Orthodox sacraments are valid (including the Penance), what makes them different with us? I mean, since their Sacrament of Penance is valid, then they can die in a blessed condition, right?

The observation of church law makes the administration and reception of the sacraments different, even though valid. (Catholics are bound to remain in full communion with the Catholic Church avoiding indifferentism or the appearance of it.)

 

[xavier12]

The observation of church law makes the administration and reception of the sacraments different, even though valid. (Catholics are bound to remain in full communion with the Catholic Church avoiding indifferentism or the appearance of it.)

I am maintaining myself to keep away from indifferentism, but my Orthodox friend told me that he could also die in a blessed condition since the Orthodox sacraments are valid. Therefore he said that there is no need for him to come in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Vico]

I am maintaining myself to keep away from indifferentism, but my Orthodox friend told me that he could also die in a blessed condition since the Orthodox sacraments are valid. Therefore he said that there is no need for him to come in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

I understand. The Catholic Church has said not to proselytize. It gives the benefit of doubt to other Christians not in full communion with it. It is not ideal that Christians are not united however. We know from what our Lord said Jn 17:21 “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”

In the Catechism:**Wounds to unity **

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” 269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism 270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers. 271
** 818** “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” 272
​