Sacramentals blessed by an SSPX priest

I was curious, if I obtain a sacramental blessed by an SSPX priest should I get it re-blessed by a priest in union with Rome or is the blessing okay?

The priest is still a valid priest. Therefore the blessing is also valid- the same as the Mass the priest says being valid.

Ken

Of course not. The blessing done by an SSPX priest actually involves more prayers and ritual than the new blessings done quickly by priests of the new rite. I would take the traditional blessing anytime over the quick sign of the cross, bless these items prayer of the new rite.

I am not certain of this, but would like to throw it out here. It might be that SSPX priests cannot grant blessings in the name of the Church, as they are not in Union with Rome. I am going to do some digging through canon law tonight, and I’ll post what I find.

[quote=kleary]Therefore the blessing is also valid- the same as the Mass the priest says being valid.
[/quote]

Meaning the blessing is illicit and constitutes a grave matter? (some form of smily that looks like it is just asking for trouble!)

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

Okay, I’ve done a bit of looking through Canon Law, and per usual am more confused than ever.
On one side, it appears Priests need Jurisdiction to confect sacramentals, which Priests in the SSPX do not have.

[quote=CIC]Can. 1168 The minister of sacramentals is a cleric who has been provided with the requisite power.
[/quote]

However there is also Can. 1169 §2

[quote=CIC]Can. 1169 §2 Any presbyter can impart blessings except those reserved to the Roman Pontiff or bishops.
[/quote]

It is times like these that I am thankful I am only an armchair canonist. I think Can. 1169 is presuming that the presbyter has the “requisite power” mentioned in Can. 1168. I still have doubts that a Priest in the SSPX can administer a blessing in the name of the Church, but I have no conclusive proof as of yet. I will continue to search the CIC and Aquinas for some insights. The one thing I was able to discover is that Members of the SSPX cannot preform exorcisms.

[quote=CIC]Can. 1172 §1. No one can perform exorcisms legitimately upon the possessed unless he has obtained special and express permission from the local ordinary.
[/quote]

So, that’s all I have for right now.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

In an sincerity, Thursady, I would be very hesitant to advise someone on this issue by referring to your own interpretation of Canon law. (Just in case you have it wrong) You don’t want to mislead anyone.

True, but in cases like these it’s best to take the sure bet. There’s questions regarding SSPX blessings, but there is none regarding those with licit jurisdiction. For the same reasons I wouldn’t put confidence in a blessing by a Greek Orthodox priest or a Chinese National priest.

If I was just using my interpretation, I would have been much more hesitant to post, but I was not. I discovered that jurisdiction is required for conferring sacramentals from a source that is not antagonistic to the SSPX at all, Father Ramon Angles sspx.

[quote=Father Ramon Angles]And yet, we know that the power of jurisdiction over the penitent is required for the validity of absolutions (Canon 872) , and that the ordinary canonical form of marriage requires the presence of an authorized priest (Canon 1094). Furthermore, without a canonical mission - which is an act of jurisdiction -a priest is not allowed to preach (Canon 1328). Authorization or delegation is as well required for performing a baptism in the usual way (Canon 739), and also to take Holy Communion to the sick in a solemn manner (Canon 848), to keep the Blessed Sacrament reserved in chapels of convents, schools and churches which are not parishes or attached to exempt religious houses (Canon 1265), to perform funeral rites (Canon 1230), to build a church (Canon 1162), and faculties are required by a cleric in order to be a legitimate minister of the Sacramentals (Canon 1146). The Code maintains that a Bishop can confirm licitly only his subjects (Canon 783), upon whom he has ordinary jurisdiction.
[/quote]

NOTE: all Canon Law references given according to the Code of 1918

So you see, even priests in the SSPX know that they require licit jurisdiction to confer sacramentals. The problem is, they do not have it. They do not receive it from the local ordinary, and their superiors cannot grant it as they are excommunicated material schismatics.

I am still going to do a bit more research in to Aquinas. I figure if it is anywhere, it is going to be there.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday


Do you have a link to what you posted above. It is always good to provide a link to the original document—that way we can know in what context statements are made.

Sorry, forgot to put that in my post
sspx.org/miscellaneous/validity_of_confessions_1.htm
It is the page on the SSPX website that deals with the validity of confessions and marriages in SSPX chapels. As far as I can tell, the conclusion of the piece is not commonly held among cononists.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday


So then—canonists can stop the flow of God’s grace.

No, but they can point out when the grace is not flowing due to an impediment.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday


Non belief in our Lord Christ as the Son of God both human and divine—would be the # 1 impediment–yet by current understanding --even a Muslim may be saved.

I think we are talking across purposes now. I am debating the notion that SSPX priests have jurisdiction, you are debating their salvation, I think. It is true that ignorance could almost be raised to the level of a sacrament, one that has saved more than all of the other seven combined. It is also possible (though not proven) that if their is “common error” with regards to the jurisdiction an SSPX priest posses, the Church might supply jurisdiction. However anyone who has looked into the matter seriously will be unable to claim “common error” as they will know their is a least grave doubt about the priest’s jurisdiction. (doubt is enough to nullify common error.)

So, here is my conclusion:
If the person asking the SSPX priest to bless the sacramental is not aware of any issues regarding jurisdiction, then there is a chance that the Church supplies the jurisdiction to the priest. However, if the ignorance about the priest’s position is in any way compromised, supplied jurisdiction via “common error” does not apply.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday


The flow of grace is found both in–blessing and salvation.
That is what I was addressing.

You said a canonist can pt. out impediments to the flow of grace. Non belief in our Lord Christ as the Son of God is the major #1 impedipent. Yet–apparently–grace still flows.

It seems that a bias double standard has been set up–with the SPPX getting the short end of the stick.

I agree. Those poor SSPXers, for whom I have much sympathy and understanding, are always get beat up. http://angelqueen.org/forum/images/smiles/dead_horse.gif

a very complex situation…but the “fix” seems a lot more easy than getting a series of invalid confessions remedied. just go ask a regular diocesan priest to bless it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.