I am so unclear on SSPX. I understand that they are not in union with Rome. Are thier sacraments valid? Are they open in thier locations? What is the distinction on why it is a sin to attend if they are valid? or are they Valid? A little help please.
Regarding SSPX; you can hear all sorts of garbage about SSPX on these threads.
I used to attend SSPX in Post Falls, ID. From about 1975 to 1988. Then the “schism” was declared,sort of.
So I shyed away as did many others. Looking back on it now I’m not so sure I did the correct thing. I guess time will tell.
You can get a hundred different opinions on your questions. Depends on just how “left of center” some folks are. Cardinal Castillon says “that the sacrements are valid” and that SSPX is not schismatic. They only sort of smell schismatic. The Cardinal says not to financially support them, but its OK to attend Mass there. (My local NO priest says the same thing).
Going to Canada this weekend for a FSSP Mass.
If things don’t clear soon on this Motu Proprio, I may go back to SSPX…
My understanding is you can go to the SSPX out of love for the liturgy - as long as you do not adhere to the shismatic attitude.
I have been going to our SSPX chapel for a little over 20 years. However, I have been strongly considering going to the indult, or finding a conservative NO parish. Years ago a group of us attempted to get the FSSP here in San Antonio, but the Bishop at the time - Bishop Flores, did not approve. I am hoping that Bishop Gomez will allow them to come to S.A.
I believe he funded the FSSP church in Denver while he was Aux. Bishop. there.
Yes, according to what 2 NO priests told me. their sacraments are valid according to what the priests told me.
I recently had my marriage blessed there, and my confirmation
there. So, yes, according to the priests i asked it is valid.
but i suppose you will get differing opinions. what do you mean by open in their locations? outdoor?
Most of their Sacraments are Valid (Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, Anointing of the Sick, and Confirmation - mostly)
However, SSPX priests do not have the necessary faculties to hear confessions or preform marriages.
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. Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior.
The SSPX priests do not receive faculties from the local ordinary of the diocese they are in, so they cannot hear confessions. SSPX Bishop’s can hear confessions, but I don’t think there is a bishop at every chapel.
Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in** cann. 144, ? 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.
** Can. 1109 Unless the local ordinary and pastor have been excommunicated, interdicted, or suspended from office or declared such through a sentence or decree, by virtue of their office and within the confines of their territory they assist validly at the marriages not only of their subjects but also of those who are not their subjects provided that one of them is of the Latin rite.
Again, SSPX priests and Bishop’s have no territory, and therefore need the approval of the local ordinary. I haven’t heard of any cases in the US where a local ordinary has given the faculties to clergy in the SSPX.
I hope this doesn’t add too much confusion to the this thread.
All seven are illicit
Holy Orders: Valid
Anointing of the Sick: Valid
Confirmation: Valid (but taken on a case by case basis to makes sure)
Confession: Invalid (unless heard by a Bishop)
You have 15 minutes to edit and put the Eucharist in place of one of your unctions.
But back on topic. . .
I think the debate about the validity of their Confessions and Marriages does belong here. The OP asked about the validity of their sacraments, so it seems dishonest to brush away serious concerns (I’m being very generous with that wording) about the validity of an SSPX Priest’s absolution.
What is your argument in favor of the validity of this sacrament? Where do the Priests receive their jurisdiction from?
Well I didnt notice that I typed Unction twice.
So for the record, Eucharist should replace one of them.
As for where they recieve their jurisdiction, they recieve them from the head of their Order and the four SSPX bishops.
Since the SSPX do not actually have territorial jursidiction, the Superior General (who is in fact one of the Bishops) and the other three Bishops provide the SSPX with the faculties for the aforementioned sacraments.
I believe this is how several priestly orders function as well.
They can ONLY receieve their jurisdiction from the local ordinary. Whether this is automatically supplied or not depends on whether you view the SSPX as excommunicated or not, and that’s a different story.
The four Bishop’s cannot grant faculties, as they have been excommunicated, and have no jurisdiction (per Thomas Aquinas, I can find the reference if needed). However, this does not even matter, as the four Bishop’s could not grant faculties to hear the confessions of the laity in any diocese.
[quote=Code of Canon Law]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. Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior.
SSPX Priests cannot hear the confessions of the laity without the faculties given by the local ordinary. It does not matter if they are given faculties by their superiors (which they are not, as their superiors do not have the jurisdiction to grant faculties.), they need the local ordinary to grant them the faculties.
Yours in Christ,
[quote=Resurrexit]They can ONLY receieve their jurisdiction from the local ordinary. Whether this is automatically supplied or not depends on whether you view the SSPX as excommunicated or not, and that’s a different story.
The faculties to hear confessions habitually must be given in writing by the local ordinary, per the CIC.
[quote=The Code of Canon Law]Can. 973 The faculty to hear confessions habitually is to be granted in writing.
I very much doubt a single priest in the SSPX has this from the local ordinary.
The Priest in question does not have faculties. From the article: “The Most Rev. Francis X. DiLorenzo, bishop of the Richmond Diocese, already has suspended Rodis’ faculties, meaning Rodis is not allowed to represent the diocese or perform priestly duties.”
This is a strawman argument anyways. Yes, there are going to be Priests who do not live rightly ordered lives; but that has no bearing on whether or not the priests in the SSPX have the faculties to hear confessions.
The CIC is very clear on who has faculties and who does not. Whether we agree with this or not, it is for us to submit to it. This is what is dangerous about the SSPX, it teaches that Submission to Rome is not necessary. In fact this is what is dangerous about belonging to any group, both liberal and conservative, that puts itself above Rome.
He had faculties UNTIL he was arrested…ie his scandal became public.
Here’s a bunch of Catholics going after a decision of the current pope.
We’re they wrong??
The Roman press reports that Pope Benedict feels “isolated” by the fury of criticism against him for knowingly appointing long-time spy for the Communist Secret Service to be installed as Archbishop of Warsaw on January 6, 2007. Pope Benedictis also described as being “angry” that public outcry forced his appointee, Stanislaw Wielgus, to resign the day after his installation. The President of Poland, an outspoken anti-Communist, who was present in the cathedral, stood up and applauded Wielgus’s resignation. Benedict, who, in spite of knowing Wielgus’s background, appointed him anyway, and gave him a full-throated public endorsement, at the same time that his officials in Warsaw had confirmed through documents in the state archives Wielgus’s Communist collaboration over a period of twenty years after Vatican II.
Benedict personally overruled the terna, the list of three nominees furnished by his Church officials in Warsaw and appointed the spy Wielgus motu proprio.
This fellow still has faculties and so much more.
In the Cincinnati area, police found drug paraphernalia and crack cocaine in Fr. Thomas Gaeke’s car. Also found was a suitcase that contained “a whip, KY Jelly, and prophylactics.” Gaeke was arrested, in the company of two male prostitutes, and charged with first-degree possession of a controlled substance, a felony, and possession of drug periphernalia, a misdemeanor. Although he had previously been arrested on drug charges, he was allowed to be pastor of two Dayton parishes. Police also stated that Gaeke rented his house to a tenant who was dealing crack out of the house. The tenant has a criminal record dating to 1989.
According drug-enforcement agents, neighbors have complained to police about possible drug activity at that address for the past year. “A lot of cars with Ohio and Indiana plates would pull up at all hours, and people were always coming and going. There’d usually be someone standing in the yard or on the porch most hours of the day and night.”
A BIG HI to Mama Bear!
You are RIGHT!
But that’s not the point. The point is that the manifestly criminal HAVE them.
For all you Newbies, Mama Bear has beautiful young cubs. (so don’t mess with her) , a California conservative (not TRAD) Catholic. Studies a lot about the Faith, promotes CD’s to the Vatican of the more outrageous abusive masses, and has gotten some results.
Won’t wear a mantilla because her cubs claw at them.
Say hello to her when you can…she really does meeeeeaaaan well.
A Born-to-Post adversary of the SSPX.
Which often can put us at odds since my convert wife is one of them SSPX’rs.
Yes, I still attend on occasion to publicly support the New Dogma of Ecumenism. I haven’t got up the nerve yet to pray in a Mosque or kiss the Quran, but who knows.
Thanks everyone for posting. I am still confused about the distinctions between Illicit and Valid. How can you have both?
So if I understand corectly going to a SSPX Mass would be ok as long as you do not financially, or philisophocally support them? Is it against Rome and Our holy Father to even go?
When a priest performs a sacrament illicitly, the sacrament is still preformed, but the action was illegal. The Priest is committing a mortal sin when they preform a sacrament illicitly.
If a sacrament is invalid, it does not truly take place. e.g. An SSPX priest saying the words of absolution over someone who knows he has no jurisdiction does not give absolution of the person’s sins.
All of the sacraments preformed by the SSPX are illicit, but only confession and marriage are invalid.
I have often had a problem understanding how one could attend an SSPX chapel without, on some level at least, support them philosophically. Also, I like to be able to receive all of the sacraments that I am likely to receive in the future (Eucharist, Confession, Marriage, anointing of the the sick) from my Parish Church. (well, most likely I will receive ordination to the permeant Diaconate at my local Cathedral, but you get the basic idea. . .) What can I say, I’m a bit of a one stop shopper.