*Interesting comments by a former SSPX priest and now head of the Institute of the Good Shephard (translated by a former SSPX/indult priest)! *
The most interesting things which Father claim in this post, are that all of the sacraments of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, and that there is a real argument in favour of supplied jurisdiction given the invalid sacraments sometimes administered by Churchmen, even by Cardinals! The faithful in the face of such abuses are required to go to where it is most safe regarding the validity of the sacraments, namely where Tradition is preserved. We will see if such statements by Fr. Laguerie will prove the beginning of the Church doing something about this crisis, or whether he will be silenced by an hierarchy more interested in hanging on to their own pet ideas than caring for the salvation of souls.
What’s not to defend? The Eastern Orthodox Sacraments also have the same valid status as the SSPX, so the SSPX Sacraments shouldn’t be in doubt.
Peace and God bless!
The eastern orthodox are independent Church’s that are separated from Rome. As such, they have their own canon law and do not operate under a premise of “supplied” jurisdiction as the SSPX claims for themselves.
The fact is that the “supplied” jurisdiction argument has been refuted by many canonists as groundless. The priests of SSPX are suspended and cannot claim to have “supplied” jurisdiction as they go about disobeying the Pope.
Unfortunately, the priest here is mistaken. And I might add, his attitude does little to encourage his suspended brother priests to re-unite with the Church.
There’s nothing wrong with Fr. Languarie’s attitude. He’s right about the validity of the confessions and the invalid “confirmations” by the Cardinal should be a wake up call.
Wrong about confessions and, btw, two wrongs don’t make a right. I don’t remember him saying anything about valid confessions being hard to come by. He picked one extraordinary circumstance and made it the norm and then used it to declare everything the SSPX does OK.:nope:
So why is it harder and harder to get a Novus Ordo priest to hear confessions these days? I have to call for an appointment? At least the SSPX are willing to hear confessions and have confession lines, sometimes too many too handle before Mass starts.
It’s because Priests in communion with Rome know their parishioners are sinless, and obviously those in the SSPX sin a lot. (I am completely kidding btw, though I know someone will quote everything but this line and flame me, I’m feeling ornery.)
In all seriousness, that is a strawman. I’m sure you could find a parish that has confession before Mass, mine does. Sometimes my priest is hearing confessions until the minute he has to get vested and say Mass. But all of this has no bearing on the validity of SSPX confessions, it is just a smoke screen. The fact that the SSPX priests are willing to hear confessions says nothing about whether they can grant absolution. There have been multiple threads on this. The CIC is very clear on the matter, the priest requires jurisdiction granted by the local ordinary.
Yours in Christ,
Pardon my ignorance. I am a convert and know next to nothing about SSPX. I know that some Eastern Rite Churches are in communion with Rome while others are not. Can you briefly explain why the churches not in communion with Rome have valid sacraments and the SSPX don’t? What is “supplied” jurisdiction? Thanks for your indulgence.
In a nutshell, the code of canon law (CIC) only applies to the western Church. It is the CIC that requires a priest have jurisdiction to hear confessions and be the Church’s witness at marriages. The Eastern Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, so their sacraments are valid.
Jurisdiction is provided by the local ordinary, even to those in religious orders in his territory. There is only one possible case where the local ordinary might have provided jurisdiction to priests in the SSPX, so it really isn’t worth going into that line of questioning.
The Church can supply jurisdiction where there would normally be none (ecclesia supplet or "The Church provides). The only (usual) circumstance this would apply to the SSPX would be Common Error. However this requires perfect ignorance of any problems with the priest’s jurisdiction (i.e. You before you (Lance) read this post). So someone who had no knowledge of the issues with SSPX jurisdiction would be validly absolved in confession.
The unusual circumstance where an SSPX priest has jurisdiction is when someone is in danger of death. As my spiritual advisor has said: “once you have danger of death, all rules go out the window.” An SSPX priest could hear a confession of a dying man validly. Of course, so could a man who left the priesthood to live with a former nun, so I’m not sure I would want to have to rely on this situation.
I hope this helps.
Yours in Christ,
Yes, lots of help. Off topic but would/could an Orthodox priest hear my confession. Likewise would/could a Latin priest hear an Orthodox confession? I am assuming there is no danger of death in either case.
Here is what the CIC says in regards to your question:
[quote=CIC]Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ? can. 861, §2.
§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the** Christian faithfu**l for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.
§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.
I hope this helps.
Yours in Christ,
I guess the fact/rumor that some that go to the SSPX priests to confess that they have attended NO liturgies turns those bishops off?
I think it is more that the priests have been suspended a divinis by Rome than that reason. Of course, if the Priest is telling the penitent that attending the nomative Mass of the Church is a sin, then maybe you’re on to something.
And, if this fact/rumor is circulating, I guess some SSPX priests have decided to wave the seal of confession.
Yours in Christ,
I’d take a PRIEST’S WORD who once was in the SSPX and now “regularized” with Rome (and head of a religious institute SUPPORTED by our Holy Father, Benedict XVI) any day than any arm chair “expert.” God Bless Fr.
It’s not about his word. Nobody is saying he’s lying about his OPINION of the situation. I’m saying he is wrong.