From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
Dear Father
We spent many years with the sspx in South Africa. Cardinal Brislin has now sent a letter specifically saying they no longer have jurisdiction for confession in the country. The sspx says his announcement is not legitimate because of the crisis in the church, and they will continue to offer confessions. Are the faithful who go there being sacramentally forgiven in confession, or not? There is only one approved TLM in the entire country, in a smaller town, with maybe 20 people going. The sspx serves significantly more people in South Africa, in every major city.
Sign me as Scrupulous in the South
I am so sorry about the anxiety you have been made to feel because of the erroneous claims of some prelates based on the erroneous claim in the DDF explanatory note which has NO juridical force. It is my opinion that they (in the DDF) knew they didn’t have juridical standing to remove the faculty to hear confession on their own, so instead they scared people and misled diocesan bishops whom they knew who fall into step.
And they did.
One bishop after another rushed before consulting to issue letters saying that SSPX absolutions were invalid. The marriages in their chapels are another kettle of chowder.
Here is the quick explanation. Leave the SSPX’s “it’s a crisis … and an emergency… and reasons” stuff aside as unneeded.
IF one believes that Francis was really the Pope (most do), and IF you believe that he gave the faculty to absolve sins to the priests of the SSPX (which he did though in a odd way), THEN those priests had the ability validly to absolve sins. Period. No discussion.
IF all that is the case, THEN no lesser authority than a Pope can remove that faculty.
You would think that a bishop would get that. Right? This isn’t rocket science. It’s like, Bp. Fatty McButterpants issues particular law – something clearly legitimate in his prevue and not against universal law – for the Diocese of Libville, but Msgr. McSwiney at the Cathedral doesn’t like it so he tells his congregation that they don’t have to obey it. Does that sound right? No.
A lesser authority doesn’t overturn the juridical decisions of the Lawgiver.
The bishops of the SSPX were declared to be excommunicated. You cannot go to them for confession.
The priests of the SSPX are not excommunicated. They continue – somebody PROVE me wrong! – to have those faculties.
In fact, it came to my attention that there is a document circulating in France about this issue. I don’t have it. I can’t verify it. Someone is writing to me about it. If it exists, it must be shared in charity. There is some affirmation of this in an article at Renaissance Catholique (in French). A distinguished canonist deals with this at Ad Vaticanum.
Hence, in my opinion, backed by experts and common sense, the SSPX priests (not bishops) still have faculties to receive sacramental confessions and validly absolve.
Why?
The only statement about this from the Holy See is in the DDF explanatory note which has ZERO indication that Leo even saw it from across the room – much less read it – much less approved it. Such an approval must be explicit in writing, not in the dreamy wishes of those who would prefer it to be so.
What a horrible thing to do to people: scare them like this about SSPX absolutions. How cruel.
That said, GO TO CONFESSION!
And you have, after reading this, a hesitation about going to an SSPX priest, then go to a regular but dependable diocesan priest.
The LAST thing I would ever want for people is to have a doubt about whether or not their sins are forgiven.
It often seems to me that the popular trend is to interpret any ambiguity in any Vatican statement, proceeding, declaration, or event in the favor of those who are creating problems and ruptures in the Church and against the faithful who are obviously trying to remain true to the Church as it existed prior to Vatican II. It seems like everyone of good will, whether they be “conservative” or “traditionalist” or “Novus Ord” or “TLM”, ought to adopt a mentality that every and all ambiguities MUST be interpreted to the benefit and favor of whichever party is in the service of the Church as it existed prior to Vatican II.
This would be one of those situations. That Conservative Catholics spend so much time trying to prove the ambiguity to the detriment of the SSPX priests and faithful is a monstrous waste of time and energy against those who are clearly not the enemy. It’s just more of that infamous circular firing squad mentality.
Last time this question was clarified by the CDF prior to the lifting of the previous excommunications, they said that the Faithful do validly receive the Sacrament even if the Priest does not validly provide it ; which is not the same as the situation of those Priests who have been formally and personally stripped of the faculty to offer the Sacraments to the Faithful as a particular and personal disciplinary measure.
Including because the SSPX Priests have not themselves been excommunicated, notwithstanding some episcopal measures that are targeting them.
I so don’t understand any of the technicalities with regards to excommunication in general, or the SSPX excommunications in particular, but a question arises in my mind when I see statements that only the bishops involved in the consecration are excommunicated, and not the priests.
My question is, aren’t Catholics who convert to Protestant religions (like becoming Lutherans) automatically excommunicated when they assent to those beliefs and deny Catholic beliefs? It doesn’t seem to me that each person is excommunicated in a formal process in those cases, but are excommunicated by the act of belonging to the group in schism and believing what the sect believes. Why doesn’t that apply to all the priests who belong to the SSPX, not to mention the faithful that adhere to the beliefs of the SSPX?
If the issue for excommunication was disobedience with regards to jurisdiction, does it matter (similar in a way to Henry VIII’s move)? All Anglicans from Henry VIII on down were automatically excommunicated, right?
I don’t have an opinion here, I’m really asking for an explanation.
What about the claim that while the excommunications are under appeal, they’re suspended/in abeyance/whatever is the correct term?
Terribly unconvincing. Those faculties were granted “until further provisions are made”. Further provisions have been made, and by an organ of the Curia, which acts ordinarily in the Pope’s name. [So, show us the part in the document that says that Leo approved it.] Moreover, we should indeed regard the society’s priests as excommunicated as they share in the schism of their superiors by the very fact of remaining associated with that organization. [Schism has to be declared, not assumed.] One should be very careful before encouraging anyone to engage in confessions that, according to the manifest judgement of the Apostolic See, are invalid. [That’s the problem, the judgement of the Apostolic See has not been made manifest.]
Theologically, a priest receives his sacramental faculties through his episcopal ordinary. [No. Sacramentally, he receives the power to forgive sins from Christ. He receives the juridical faculty to exercise that power from competent authority (including at times the law itself).] If that ordinary has been formally declared a schismatic, does that not leave the faculties in doubt? [No. We are not Donatists.] I do not understand this article, Father.
Yes, Pope Francis intervened with his own, higher authority. But if the SSPX Bishops below Francis refuse to recognize the authority of Francis’ successor over them, does that not break the chainlink, so-to-speak, between the priests and the pope? [Again, we are not Donatists. And Francis did not give the ability to grant faculties to the SSPX bishops.]
To add to my last comment:
If you cut off the arm at the elbow, does not the hand fall with it?
@fac
Apart from the fact that Protestant are now welcomed as our “brethren” – heck, Anglicans are even allowed to offer their liturgy publicly inside the Vatican – the two issues at stake are:
1) – Protestants and other heretics separate themselves from the Church, typically by manifesting specific beliefs which contradict established dogma as taught by the Church. The priests of the SSPX have not done this, no one has actually accused them of doing this, and certainly no statement from the Vatican has pointed to this.
2) – The bishops of the SSPX who performed the consecration without permission were excommunicated on grounds of disobedience – how does one then extend the charge of disobedience against all the priests who are beneath those bishops? If the Captain of a Navy Ship was ordered to sail into the Persian Gulf and fire missiles at a target, and he refused, he could be court martialed for disobedience, but nobody in their right mind would think that the other officers in his crew should also be court martialed for disobedience.
If one wants to make the case that the SSPX is actually a schism that rejects Catholic dogma, one would have to provide proof that this is the case or that the Vatican or the Pope has even remotely suggested this. And saying “they reject Vatican II” is not adequate, as the powers-that-be continue to refuse to assert which “dogma” Vatican II taught that requires assent, or bothered to respond to the clearly defined objections the SSPX (and other critics, who have remained not-excommunicated) have voiced.
Does that help explain it?
@WVC
Yes, thank you, that does help a little. I still am not clear, then, on why all Anglicans were excommunicated when Henry VIII declared himself head of the Church in England, because that seems to be a somewhat similar usurpation of jurisdiction while retaining all the doctrinal elements of the faith (at least while Henry was still alive. I know what happened once he was dead.)
I have heard it said the SSPX are careful to claim fidelity to the Pope and on one hand do not deny his authority over them, but then they claim supposed “supplied jurisdiction” to do what he expressly forbade. Again, I am very ignorant on all the technicalities, but it appears that in doing so they are arrogating to themselves the authority of the Pope to govern, and in a sense, are creating a separate Church, and in that way they are in schism. And it would seem to me that all who adhere to a group the Church has declared schismatic would be automatically excommunicated simply by adherence to that group.
This is a delicate topic that requires a measure of precision, precisely because it bears directly on the salvation of souls.
@fac “And it would seem to me that all who adhere to a group the Church has declared schismatic would be automatically excommunicated simply by adherence to that group.”
Here you are suggesting an approach which is stricter than that taken by the DDF in July.
In the decree of July 2 the 5 Bishops’ were declared to be in schism and excommunicate on 2 counts: Giving or receiving Consecration without the Apostolic Mandate and consecrating or being consecrated against the express will of the Holy Father. (This excommunication is reserved to the Holy See.)
In addition Bishop Fellay, as Co-Consecrator, was declared to have incurred latae sententiae excommunication for the first reason but not the second.
Besides that the priests, sisters and faithful who are attached in some way to the FSSPX (only the priests can actually be members) were warned that if they formally adhere to this schism then they are excommunicated as well.
This is not a declaration of excommunication but only a warning.
The explanatory note sets out, among other things, to explain, by reference to a 1996 document from the then CDF, what “formal adherence to the schism” would require.
Since it involves both an internal, subjective adherence as well as some external public act or declaration on the part of the excommunicate person, a determination of schism and excommunication can only be made on a case by case basis.
In the case of priests who continue to retain their membership in the now schismatic FSSPX, the Explanatory note says that they can be presumed to be in formal adherence to the schism. (To me, it seems too definitive a judgment to make of all the SSPX priests since evidence in July showed that many of them were opposed to the consecrations and may still be. The fact that they continue to run parishes does not prove adherence to the schism since they may be not be intending adherence to the schism but merely intending to keep the annual commitment that they have made to the SSPX and provide pastoral care for their people.)
In any case, this is not a declaration of penalty but a warning to those priests and to us that they are likely to be in schism. Perhaps we will see some priests leave the FSSPX as their annual commitments run their course? Only time will tell.
The last comment grew too long so I am placing this in a new comment:
Lastly, the question of this post: Is absolution given by an SSPX priest valid?
in general, a priest who is excommunicated cannot licitly place any act in the name of the Church until the excommunication is lifted. In addition, he cannot validly absolve sins except in the danger of death or witness marriages without delegation from the competent territorial authority.
As our host answered @Uncle Mike above:
Sacramentally, he receives the power to forgive sins from Christ. He receives the juridical faculty to exercise that power from competent authority (including at times the law itself.
In regard to these sacraments the situation of the priests of the SSPX became more complicated during the year of the priest when Francis gave to the faithful who might go to an SSPX priest the ability to be forgiven by the absolution received. The original language of this grant avoided saying that any faculty was being received by the priest -confessor but rather it was a grant to the faithful penitent. When the grant was extended at the end of the year, it was given as a faculty to priests of the SSPX. (Incidentally, this indicates that at that time the SSPX was not in schism nor were its priests excommunicated by being members.)
The situation since July has changed in this way:
The FSSPX is now declared to be in schism along with its bishops and any priests who are formally adherent to the schism.
(What follows is my personal speculation based on the above)
As such, it would seem to me that those SSPX priests who are in fact in schism and therefore excommunicated are unable to retain or receive anew the faculty granted to them at the end of the Year of Mercy and therefore their absolutions are invalid. But the faithful attending an SSPX chapel have no way of knowing whether the priest in the confessional is excommunicated or not and so must be left wondering whether the absolution he received is valid. In this case, it would be better to go to confession to a priest who is in communion with his territorial or religious Ordinary and so to remove this doubt.
Highly appreciate this, Father.
Here’s a question: what if someone did not believe that Francis was the pope, and instead subscribed to the theory that Benedict’s resignation was invalid, etc.- would it still be possible for the absolutions given by SSPX priests to be valid in that case?
https://wdtprs.com/2021/06/the-question-of-two-popes-bothers-a-lot-of-people-some-thoughts/
I know this article is a few years old, and I have no idea how your opinions have shifted on this subject, but assuming for a moment that the scenario of Francis not being the pope is true, and that one of the ideas proposed by the article above is true, namely that even if Francis were not the pope, Ecclesia supplet could still apply to him, and would then make his juridical acts still valid; would that apply to him granting faculties to the SSPX priests?
I only ask this because I have several family members who regularly attend the SSPX for Mass as well as confessions, and I know for a fact that a number of them are unsure/do not believe that Francis was the pope at the time…
@fac – I don’t believe you’re doing a fair comparison with Henry VIII and the current situation with the SSPX. Henry VIII literally usurped jurisdiction as the Spiritual Head of the Church in England, annulled his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, persecuted faithful Catholics who opposed the Acts of Supremacy and Succession, dissolved monasteries, and even had the bones of St. Thomas dug up and scattered while condemning the saint and proclaiming him a traitor. Eventually the liturgy and even Holy Orders were changed to steer away from the clear teaching and intent of the Church, and obviously priests who received orders under the new form were not in communion with the Catholic Church.
This seems different by orders of magnitude when compared to the SSPX acknowledging a crisis of severe proportion within the Church that requires disobedience to the specific request to refrain from doing an otherwise perfectly legal and moral thing in keeping with the teaching of the Church.
@WVC and @Fr. Kelly:
I really appreciate you taking the time to try to answer my questions. What I now understand better is that the Explanatory Note says priests who continue their membership in the SSPX can be presumed to be in formal adherence to the schism, and they are warned if they continue membership they are excommunicated as well. But it’s not clear to me when the warning becomes reality. After a day, a month, a year? It does seem to suggest the excommunication is automatic at some point though.
And, true to form, there does not seem to be any explanations coming out of the Vatican to clarify any of these questions, which I expect is deliberate. But since things are so uncertain at this point, I myself would not venture to receive sacraments at an SSPX chapel unless the need was dire.