Valid Sacraments
#1
"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."

Canon law states that a Catholic, in a time of emergency, can receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick validly from non-Catholic ministers. If this is so, then the SSPX is even more valid.  For their ministers are actually properly ordained priests who are more Catholic than some Novus Ordo(NO) priests I've seen.  Just because they have not been given the faculties to perform them from Rome, this does not mean the authority to do so cannot come through canon law.

As long as we use caution in regard to the error of indifferentism, which is not likely in an SSPX chapel, for they seem to be more Catholic than the Pope.  Also we are told it must be physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister; with the state of the Church such as it is, I question if the NO even has any priest that are still legitimate.  This would go back to the changes of Vatican II to the rites of holy orders.

The priest's of the Indult Mass have dissuaded me from going to SSPX, because of their canonical irregularity with Rome.  But I see this as little more than a battle over authority with Rome, who dislike the Tridentine Latin Mass(TLM) and seek to destroy all existing tradition in the Church.  There is an agenda coming from Rome that is not healthy for true Catholics.  This is a war of philosophy; modernists against the true Catholic Tradition of the Church of all time.
Reply
#2
Let us distinguish between being canonically irregular and not being Catholic.

The priests of the SSPX are fully Catholic; therefore, Can. 844 §1 applies to them, and §2 does not.  There is no canonical restriction on the faithful availing themselves of sacraments from the SSPX, except for marriage.

Let's not be extreme in drawing a contrast between SSPX and non-SSPX priests either.  There are many wonderful priests who were ordained in the new rite and celebrate the NO.  And do not go further into a heresy by suggesting that their ordinations are invalid.
"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church -- which is, of course, quite a different thing." -Ven. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

"Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity." -Fr. John Hardon, S.J.
Reply
#3
Steven is correct, although this was an ad absurdam argument used by Fr Ramòn Angles, FSSPX in his canonical arguments for the validity of the SSPX Sacraments.

The SSPX itself argues that Canon 844 § 2 ff. is an example of a bad law, and probably therefore not a valid law (which has to be an ordinance of reason for the common good), because while it does embody a principle that could be used in an extreme situation (e.g. a Catholics imprisoned in a place for a long time with only an Orthodox priest to absolve them or give them Communion), it is, by its weakness with words like "spiritual advantage" suggesting communicatio in sacris  and is clearly an open door to it.

At present, one cannot use Canon 844 § 2 as Steven says, because there is no question that the SSPX priests are truly 100% Catholic. The only problem is that the Holy See does not recognize the legal status of the SSPX (and holds that they were suppressed in 1976).

Also there is no question on the validity of SSPX Sacraments and no need to any longer claim extraordinary (i.e. supplied) jurisdiction for Penance or Marriage, which was the only thing that could be legitimately questioned.

More serious is your claim, however about the validity of Novus Ordo ordination. Even the SSPX holds that the Novus Ordo ceremonies, if done with the proper intention and correctly by a validly-ordained bishop are valid. 

There could be room for doubt in the intention of the ordaining bishop, because it is not always clear that they mean to ordain this man a priest (i.e. one who offers sacrifice), and there are certainly cases where bishops ad lib the ceremony. Absent a firm reason to question the intention of the bishop and absent any evidence that some essential part of the rite was flubbed, there new rites are valid.

For the priesthood, the matter and form are essentially the same. The only question is intention, which is always presumed, unless there be some solid reason to doubt ("positive" doubt) not merely just passing worry ("negative" doubt).
Reply
#4
(09-12-2018, 10:21 AM)Steven Wrote: And do not go further into a heresy by suggesting that their ordinations are invalid.

This would not be heresy, unless there were an heretical reason for rejecting it (e.g. Donatism).
Reply
#5
SSPX has supplied jurisdiction. A Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter priest told an older man he could go to SSPX. I knew that older man and he told me, so this is first hand. I do not understand why SSPX thinks it needs approval from a corrupt Rome. It is the onslaughts against SSPX that have been highly irregular. Archbishop Lefebvre saw it as a "badge of honor" to be considered excommunicated by this corrupt, false Rome. He adhered to Eternal Rome. Life is strange in these troubled times.
Reply
#6
(09-16-2018, 09:23 PM)greatdame Wrote: SSPX has supplied jurisdiction.   A Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter priest told an older man he could go to SSPX.  I knew that older man and he told me, so this is first hand.  I do not understand why SSPX thinks it needs approval from a corrupt Rome.  It is the onslaughts against SSPX that have been highly irregular.  Archbishop Lefebvre saw it as a "badge of honor" to be considered excommunicated by this corrupt, false Rome.  He adhered to Eternal Rome.  Life is strange in these troubled times.

One cannot "have" supplied jurisdiction, by the very definition of that. The jurisdiction is "supplied" for an action, where one does not "have it".

As regards the SSPX, they have ordinary jurisdiction for Confessions given by the Pope himself.

They also now have a means to be named a delegated witness for marriages (not strictly something from jurisdiction, but a requirement of law for validity). If the local bishop balks on granting that delegation, the SSPX priest can, with even more obvious and clear strength of argument, make the case for the extraordinary form of marriage given in Canon Law (which is what the SSPX had previously used).

Archbishop Lefebvre did see it as a "badge of honor" to be considered antiquated and "schismatic" from the novelties pushed by certain Churchmen, but at heart "cleaved to eternal Rome" and went to Rome whenever reasonably asked, and always held out hope that the authorities would embrace the "experiment of Tradition" and let the Society and others show how Tradition was the only answer, even to the point of being willing to see recognition of this work he oversaw. He did that starting in 1971, when he sought Cardinal Wright's official praise of the Society. When he visited Paul VI to try to correct the errors that Paul VI had been told about the SSPX, when he tried to appeal the illicit suppression of the SSPX in 1976 and even in 1988 when he sought to have a bishop for the Society with the approval of the Holy Father and canonical recognition of the Society.

He was a very balanced man, standing fast for the Faith, refusing to compromise with error, yet always seeking the approval of the Church through Her authorities, of the work, so it was an never an "independent" work except that Churchmen unreasonably refused to recognize it.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#7
And, in my NSHO, when the Church returns to sanity, as She must, he will be raised to the honours of the Altar as St Marcel, a Second Athanasius. (Full disclosure: I have never attended an SSPX Mass in my life, tho' I did once confess to one of their Priests.)
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#8
(09-17-2018, 12:33 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: And, in my NSHO, when the Church returns to sanity, as She must, he will be raised to the honours of the Altar as St Marcel, a Second Athanasius. (Full disclosure: I have never attended an SSPX Mass in my life, tho' I did once confess to one of their Priests.)

You did what!?!?

Big Grin
Reply
#9
And it was to a rather 'infamous' member of the Institute, whose initials are RA! LOL
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)