From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
If Father Joe Schmoe were validly ordained a bishop, and then immediately excommunicated for having been illicitly so ordained, does he actually have any of the abilities/authorities that bishops are supposed to have? If Deacon John Smith were to someday be ordained a priest by (then) Bishop Schmoe before the excommunication were lifted, would that ordination be valid?
Under normal circumstances a man who is – without the mandate of the Holy See – consecrated as a bishop incurs the automatic excommunication reserved to the Holy See. The automatic excommunication would doubtless be confirmed with a declaration from the Holy See if it is a public matter. Once imposed or declared, can. 1331 §2 adds further effects, including invalid exercise of acts of governance.
That bishop validly, but illicitly, ordains to Holy Orders and confirms and celebrates Mass. In fact, an excommunicated person cannot either celebrate or receive any of the sacraments. He cannot even go to confession unless there is danger of death. A confessor (i.e., a priest with faculties to receive sacramental confessions) cannot absolve him. He would have to go through the process with the proper authority to have the censure lifted before he could go to confession. In the case of an illicitly consecrated bishop, he would have to either himself go to Rome to the Apostolic Penitentiary (or to the Pope) and work with them or else have recourse to the Apostolic Penitentiary through the intermediary of a confessor.
A man ordained a priest by that excommunicated bishop is validly ordained, but he is suspended from exercising Holy Orders. He says Mass validly, but illicitly. Unless there is danger of death, he does not have the faculty to absolve sins.
What sacraments would be VALID when exercised by an excommunicated, but validly ordained priest, bishop, etc?
Eucharist: I think yes
Confession: Uncertain. Does the existing dispensation granted by Pope Francis remain in effect? [We can’t know until it happens (please, God not) but probably that will cease.]
Marriage: Uncertain. Does the existing dispensation granted by Pope Francis remain in effect? [Ditto]
Extreme Unction: I believe yes due to danger of death
Baptism: I believe yes as anyone can technically baptize.
Confirmation: I believe yes as a bishop who ordains another bishop passes on his authority.
Holy Orders: Valid yes? So long as said consecrating Bishop has valid apostolic succession.
Is any of the above incorrect?
A terrifying reality. Is there also then an issue with witnessing marriages?
[If the Holy See declares the SSPX to be in schism… interesting. I’ll use a separate comment for this.]
Father,
Piggybacking off of this good gentleman’s (or lady’s) question, I must ask, what is the impact of illicit Masses or Sacraments? Do we not receive grace? Is it a sin? If so, what is the sin? I’ve been scratching my head at this for many years and have yet to come up with a satisfactory answer.
Sincerely, TradCathMale
[I can’t answer that question. There are too many variables.]
“Unless there is danger of death, he does not have the faculty to absolve sins.”
A truly frightening thought.
I always think of that priest Fr. Matt Hood who found out three years after ordination that he was never validly baptized and thus had an invalid ordination. All those confessions…
Beatify: Yes, marriages witnessed in Churches in schism with Rome can be valid in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, but it depends on the parties.
To be clear, were the SSPX to be declared in schism (quod Deus avertat), they would probably eventually (maybe after a couple more generations) be a Church, not an ecclesial community like the Anglicans or Lutherans, because they have valid apostolic line of succession bishops, valid sacraments. I think the Holy See would consider them still Catholic subjects, subject to current canon law.
For two non-Catholics, such as two Orthodox Christians marrying before an Orthodox priest, Rome ordinarily considers the marriage valid, and if both are baptized, sacramental.
For a Catholic marrying in a schismatic church, the issue is Catholic canonical form. Catholics are normally bound to marry before a Catholic priest/deacon with proper faculty and two witnesses. Without dispensation, a Catholic marriage before a non-Catholic minister is ordinarily invalid.
However, there is an exception. If a Catholic marries an Eastern non-Catholic, such as an Orthodox Christian, before an Orthodox priest, Catholic canonical form is required only for liceity, not validity, provided that a sacred minister is present and the other requirements of law are observed.
So:
Now to the SSPX.
For Catholics, marriage is valid only if consent is exchanged before the local Ordinary, pastor, or a priest/deacon delegated by one of them, plus two witnesses. An SSPX priest does not automatically have that delegation.
The 2017 Holy See provision allowed local bishops to grant faculties for SSPX marriages. It did not give every SSPX priest a universal faculty to witness marriages.
So, after a formal declaration of schism (Quod Deus avertat):
Catholics marrying before an SSPX priest in an SSPX chapel without delegation: ordinarily invalid for defect of canonical form.
A declaration of schism would not make the SSPX equivalent to the Orthodox for marriage-law purposes. The Eastern non-Catholic exception does not apply. YET, at least. I think it would take a couple of generations for something like the Eastern exemption.
Possible exceptions would be narrow: supplied jurisdiction, true common error or positive probable doubt, or extraordinary form under canon 1116. But a normal planned SSPX chapel wedding without delegation would ordinarily be invalid according to the current Canon Law for the Latin Church.
And yet…
Canon Law itself gives space that if an act that is excommunicable is done because the doer perceives it is necessary due to some crisis, the penalty is not received and no sin is committed, even if the crisis and necessity is only in the person’s mind, but he sincerely believes it. [In order to incur a censure, one has to have committed a mortal sin.]
Thank you for the prayers and good works Father. God is in control, and knows the hearts and souls of all involved.
In an objective view, it seems one can be united with Rome as long as he/she is an Anglican, a Muslim, or any thing else. Just don’t be a Catholic who follows the Traditions of the Church handed down for centuries. [Sadly ironic.]
I guess if you want to look at the positive side: once the SSPX is schismatic, its priests should be able to say Mass at St. Peter’s in Rome, meet with the Pope and bless him, be welcomed as being one with Christ’s Church, and maybe even get a prayer room in the Vatican!
What about Orthodox confessions? At what point do SSPX confessions “become” valid after they are declared in formal schism? [I don’t think anyone can answer that question.]
Technically the Orthodox are not in schism, as the anathemas were lifted. We remain out of communion only because of failure to reestablish it. As I understand it, there is nothing in law standing in the way.
Moon1234:
Eucharist: De Defectibus says a priest who celebrates Mass while under ecclesiastical censure confects a valid Sacrament but commits a grievous sin. This technically applies to every SSPX priest since they do not have dimissorial letters from their canonical authority to be ordained and would have been suspended from the exercise of each order without (there’s even a section in the Pontificale Romanum where this is supposed to be publicly announced).
Confession, Marriage, and Confirmation all rely on Ordinary jurisdiction so would be invalid without the faculties granted by Francis. They claim they have
“supplied jurisdiction” but if one believes that Leo is a valid pope, then it would be… debatable at best if not spurious
Baptism and Extreme Unction would be valid. The former, as you note, anyone can do in an emergency.
TradCathMale brings up an important question.
The sacraments in the SSPX are illicit, so how are people supposed to feel comfortable with that especially in comparison to a sacrament that is both valid and licit when administered with the proper permission.
I hear a lot of talk about the moral choices of some in the Catholic hierarchy and yet it doesn’t matter if the priest is a terrible sinner or not when considering a sacrament one receives from that priest. That sacrament will be both valid and licit.
But in the SSPX the sacraments are illicit no matter the holiness of the priest. Seems kind of odd that this issue is never really brought up. Illicit sacraments make God unhappy. Isn’t that kind of like sin?
@prayfatima
So if one takes one’s kids to a parish where, right before Mass, Fr. Jimmy Martin gives a very public and special “non-liturgical” blessing to homosexual activists with no intent to repent of their lifestyle whatsoever, that makes God happy? Because, hey, at least there was no question about the Eucharist being conferred licitly.
I’m pretty sure the state of the priest’s soul does not change the fact that the Eucharist is being conferred validly and licitly. That’s how the sacraments are meant to be conferred so I imagine there would be no issue. The state of the priest’s soul is obviously an issue to God, but God made it so that we don’t have to worry about that when we are going to Mass. Don’t we have enough to worry about already? Plus, it’s impossible to know the state of someone else’s soul just by looking at them.
If I had no other options for Mass, I would probably get to Fr. Jimmy Martin’s Mass right at the starting point, take my children outside for the entire homily and proceed to go back inside when the homily had fully ended, thus allowing us to go up for Communion. We would leave immediately after Mass.
I’m sure there are at least some other options for Mass though. When in doubt you could always find a parish where you don’t speak the language, it’s worked for me before.