SSPX Can of Worms

[Inion_Coinin]

Sorry about opening this up. We're going to Galveston tomorrow and so we will be attending the SSPX Mass in Dickinson. I am not in a state of Grace and am desperately in need of confession.

I love attending the SSPX mass but I am still on the fence with regards to jurisdiction. Each time I've gone to confession at the SSPX, I've been plagued with scruples, in fact, I'm plagued with scruples no matter what I do lately.

Can anyone tell me what they think about the issue of jurisdiction, and how it relates to receiving the sacrament of penance at an SSPX chapel? I really want to just be okay with it, but I am so confused at times. Help!

Originally Posted by Inion_Coinin

Sorry about opening this up. We're going to Galveston tomorrow and so we will be attending the SSPX Mass in Dickinson. I am not in a state of Grace and am desperately in need of confession.

I love attending the SSPX mass but I am still on the fence with regards to jurisdiction. Each time I've gone to confession at the SSPX, I've been plagued with scruples, in fact, I'm plagued with scruples no matter what I do lately.

Can anyone tell me what they think about the issue of jurisdiction, and how it relates to receiving the sacrament of penance at an SSPX chapel? I really want to just be okay with it, but I am so confused at times. Help!

Even if there was a case for not confessing to an SSPX priest (I can't argue one way or the other since I'm not up on all of that), is it not true that in cases of real need, one can confess to any Catholic priest? I mean, if I were out of town, and I direly needed confession, I could pop into any Catholic Church and go to confession licitly, no?

[Mark M Zima]

Dear Inion_Coinin,

The thing to understand about jurisdiction is that the Church developed the doctrine for the purpose of defending the faith. The true purpose of jurisdiction has been twisted to do just the opposite, in our day. History is clear that priests, bishops, and even the popes make mistakes and need correction. History is also clear that most of them do not receive correction with joy. The weapon they marshal to defend their errors is jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is very important and it is not wise to capriciously challenge the guidance of the hierarchy. But it is just as wrong not to challenge them when they are obviously overstepping their authority. The time we live in has many difficult questions to discern that even learned clerics are sometimes left scratching their heads not knowing what to do. For a devout Catholic, the many challenges facing them in these days up their scruples and cause them to be uncertain. These scruples are caused by the sins of the hierarchy, so any mistakes the laity make are mitigated, in part, by bad leadership.

Rome has said that a Catholic can go to Mass and financially support SSPX chapels. They have not said a Catholic can receive all the sacraments at SSPX chapels. From time to time, I have attended SSPX chapels and I do not endorse doing so across the board. Some of their priests are good men and will help you with your sanctification. Other priests of the society are to be avoided. What has to be discerned is the following:

• Motive for going
• View of the Society

If you believe that the Church is in a crisis and are only going to a society chapel because your diocese does not provide an equal means of grace for you (sacraments, preaching, teaching, fellowship) then I believe it is permittable to go.

If you do not view the society as “the Church” and have not spiritually divorced your diocese then I believe you are not a schismatic (formally or materially).

I believe my response is consistent with what Pope John Paul II taught in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

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 faithful 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.

Back in the 1990’s I attended a lecture and had dinner with a Doctor of Canon Law & Church History, Count Neri Capponi. In discussion with Prof. Capponi, canon 844 was discussed. We asked the professor if the SSPX could fall under the umbrella of the canon. Prof. Capponi told us that “if the canon could be applied to the Orthodox,” that was the intent of the pope, “in justice,” he said, “it must be applied to the SSPX.” I completely agree. We are in the greatest crisis the Church has ever faced and we should not worry about spiritually genuflecting to the whimsical will of the hierarchy when just surviving is difficult enough.

If you separate confession from spiritual direction you can, usually, find a local priest who can hear your confession. If not, go to the SSPX. Be careful that your conscience does not play tricks on you. I do not know why you believe yourself separated from God but no soul that fears separation from God can truly be far from him. Your concern is a testimony of the grace of God in your life. It is common for those with strong scruples to believe that they have sinned and have not. Be careful, scruples can make you despair. To be repulsed from sin is healthy but when sin make you forget the Savior who atoned for all you offenses it is not.

[Tradcat]

Good post, Mark.

In short, Inion, it boils down to "is there or is there not a crisis today?" The highest law in canon law is not "you must obey every jot and tittle to the letter, because we represent God and we say so," the first law is, rather "the highest law is the salvation of souls." This is the interpretation that must govern canon law, and if canons work against this, they do not apply in the given case, for the Church cannot command someone to do something harmful for their soul. (Church and churchmen being different, of course.)

We often hear commentators, be they neocon laymen, neocon priests and bishops, or liberal priests and bishops say, "oh, the SSPX is schismatic, one cannot licitly receive the sacraments from them, confession is invalid," etc. However, this is not Rome's view of the matter. We know this, because when Campos was "reconciled" with Rome in 2002, not a word was said, and nothing was done to save the souls of the poor Campos people who, according to the legalists, are now on the way to hell, since they have numerous invalid marriages and unconfessed mortal sins from all their confessions to "schismatic" SSPX and SSJV priests. If the authorities really and truly felt the SSPX were schismatic, they would have insisted (they would have had no choice, their Catholic duty would have compelled them) to have done something like this to insure that all the Campos faithful were able to live in the state of grace after their adherence to 'schism.' Besides... in order for there to be schism, there must be knowledge and culpability on the SSPX's part, and consequent mortal sin, yet even the most jaded neocon will, I think, admit that the SSPX is acting in good faith, doing what they feel the Catholic faith mandates them to do. Rome has explicitly said as much. "There is no schism." (Yet, even if there were open schism, it is not denied that the Orthodox have valid confession, marriage, etc.)

The SSPX's continued existence is obviously necessary in the Church today. If it were not for them, acting as the crowbar against the neo-modernist shut door to Tradition, the reasons cited for the SSPX's obsolescence (Ecclesia Dei societies and SP masses) wouldn't exist... and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. I have had gentlemen who attend the Indult in St. Louis candidly say to me that when push comes to shove, they believe that the majority of the true Catholic faithful in the world today can be found at SSPX chapels. Even if one disputes the numbers, it's still food for thought as far as the rightness or wrongness of the SSPX's actions and the like. It is a duty to be Catholic. It is not a crime.

[Inion_Coinin]

Thank you so much for your commentaries, I found them quite helpful. And Mark, it is helpful to hear that I don't have to bear the burden of the crisis on my own shoulders, which is how I read your post.

I had the wonderful Grace of sharing my sins with a great confessor today, and am so much better for it.

[Mark M Zima]

Originally Posted by Inion_Coinin

Thank you so much for your commentaries, I found them quite helpful. And Mark, it is helpful to hear that I don't have to bear the burden of the crisis on my own shoulders, which is how I read your post.

I had the wonderful Grace of sharing my sins with a great confessor today, and am so much better for it.

You understood me correctly. Don’t let the insanity in the Church drive you insane. I am so glad your conscience is at peace.

I spoke with a priest at a diocesan TLM yesterday about some of your concerns. He concurred that because of the crisis in the Church in accordance with canon 844 that the confessions of the priests of the SSPX are valid.

[Bruno]

Not only is receiving the Sacraments from a SSPX Priest valid - in my mind they are preferred!

As a layman I am unqualified to "judge" the validity of the NO Sacraments. They are of course valid when the correct Matter, Form, Minister and Intention is used.

However all the "updated" Sacraments have been changed (mutilated). Why!!!! Beyond the point of validity? I don't know. Those more informed than I and whom I respect tell us that they can be valid when used as the Church issued them.

But then we have the problem of "Intention". Who knows what some of the Priests tainted with the heresy of Modernism (condemned by St. Pius X in his Decrees Lamentabili and Pascendi) think? There are books describing how enemies of the Church have even intentionally infiltrated the Priesthood with the intention of causing scandle and seeking positions of Authority. Some have even messed with the Matter, Form, and even Minister as well as Intention. Beyond validity?

I don't know. That is the Point. Our Salvation and the Salvation of those whom we may influence is literally at stake. As Eric pointed out "The Salvation of Souls is the Primary Law."

We therefore dare not exist in doubt where Salvation is at stake. Hence the need to have access to the Mass and Sacraments of the Saints (as the Saints had them.) The Traditional forms have a proven record of forming Saints.

In every crises in The Church God has raised up champions - Great Saints to defend Her. In the current crises He has not abondoned us. He gave us Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the brave Priests of the SSPX - Deo Gratias!

I know of no other place to go for this certainty which is so necessary and vital for Salvation. We cannot wait for the Church to cleanse Herself of so many Modernists currently in control. We need to save our souls NOW.

Thank God for the SSPX. The give us the certainty of the Mass and Sacraments of the Saints.

"By their fruits you shall know them."

SSPX seminaries are full and overflowing, their chapels are growing everyday.

NO seminaries are closing, Beautiful Churches being mutilated, sold, etc.

[Bruno]

TLMs that are approved by the Diocese are of course to be encouraged. The more TLMs the better. The Graces are sorely needed.

However those that provide these "approved" TLMs cannot inform their flock of the dangers of the Modernism within The Church. They cannot warn their flock of the Greatest danger and crises in The Church.

The Modernists in control are essentially saying to them: "We'll let you exist on a limited basis as long as you don't warn others about the harm we are doing."

Without the SSPX it is doubtful that these other TLMs would be allowed.

Never-the-less, we need more of them also as our beloved Church gradually fills more and more souls with much needed Grace.

[Stevus Magnus]

Inion,

This is probably a moot point now, since your OP was so long ago.

However, I went through your same plight and I researched this issue profusely.

As far as Rome is concerned, in private communication to Brian Mershon on the question, the Ecclesia Dei office wrote on May 23, 2008...

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/080711

"The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese of religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 265) and also because those ordained after the schismatic Episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop.

"Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144)

A: What level of authority do your answers to this private correspondence hold?

PCED: "As we already stated to you in our letter of 4 July 2007: "This Pontifical Commission does its best to transmit responses which are in full accord with the magisterium and the present canonical practices of the Catholic Church. One should accept them with docility and can act upon them with moral certainty." We would further add that no dicastery of the Holy See will give other responses than those which we have given here."

Whether Rome's stance has changed as regards the remitting of the excommunications I do not know. But this is the closest thing I could find to Rome taking a position on the subject.

Of course there are arguments the Society makes and that even non-Society adherents like John Salza make from Canon Law that Society confessions may be valid...

http://www.catholicintl.com/catholic...onfessions.pdf

In the end if you are uncertain I'd stick with the best NO confessors you can find for your conscience's sake. If you are scrupulous this will eat you up and not go away. In any case, it looks like the Society priests will be given jurisdiction soon and this will not be an issue.

[ipwnuathalo]

We up end up driving a looooong way to go to confession, usually to an FSSP chapel. Worth it.

[Ravenonthecross]