A reader writes:
This makes sense, but what about cases where something is valid but illicit, such as a SSPX Mass? Why is it bad? a sin? to go to those? And then why does God show up?
If SSPX marriages were presumed valid then there would be more room for attending them than there is.
In actuality, SSPX marriages are not presumed valid.
The reason:
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.
Since SSPX priests are seldomnever so delegated by the lawful bishop or pastor of the Catholic faithful they are marrying, the marriages are not valid due to lack of form. (None of the exceptions, incidentally, apply to the SSPX).
SSPXers will use evil trickery to try to argue around this conclusion (esp. using canon 144, but they are no more successful with applying that canon to marriages than they are in applying it to confessions; SEE ANALYSIS HERE), but their evil trickery is nothing more than evil trickery.
The marriages they perform between Catholics ain’t valid.
Consequently, I can’t recommend attending them.
They could be valid due to common error.
Btw, I see that the description I gave of “common error” earlier in these comment boxes (also related to an SSPX thread) was wrong. “Common error” means that ordinary people are mistaken as to whether a priest has faculties to celebrate a particular Sacrament. The Church supplies jurisdiction in these instances, even when particular individuals know that the celebrating priest does not have faculties. That is, if it is commonly believed among members of the Faithful that SSPX priests have faculties to celebrate marriages, then those marriages are valid even for people who know that they don’t.
What about a church that does the tridentine mass with the Bishop’s approval? The church has no problem with the latin rite, but prefers the tridentine and that’s what they do. Even if there are some people in that church who might be leaning towards SSPX with some of their beliefs, I would think it would be the same as attending a latin rite church where people don’t follow the Holy Father by contracepting, etc. Can one attend a wedding there? Can one attend mas there? I know the Archbishop confirmed people there so I am guessing it is in full communion with the church. Any thoughts?
Can one attend a wedding there? Can one attend mas there?
Of course.
DCS, the common error argument won’t work for two reasons: (1) There is no common error on whether SSPX priests have been given faculties by the local ordinary of the lawful pastor of a person; people attending SSPX chapels do not think that the SSPX priests are checking with and obtaining faculties to perform these marriages; also (2) the Church is accustomed to extending faculties in ecclesia supplet situations *to its own ministers,* not to priests in a state of schism.
There is no common error on whether SSPX priests have been given faculties by the local ordinary of the lawful pastor of a person; people attending SSPX chapels do not think that the SSPX priests are checking with and obtaining faculties to perform these marriages.
I don’t see how one can be certain of this unless one interviews the folks who go to SSPX chapels. I recall Card. Bevilacqua relating a story of how his mother asked a nun where she could find a church. Little known to Mrs. Bevilacqua, the nun was a Methodist-Episcopal nun and pointed her in that direction. It was some time before she figured out that she was not attending a Catholic church! Given the confusion of our current time, I would not be surprised if many people going to SSPX chapels happened across them in similar circumstances. Most people probably wouldn’t think to ask their priest whether or not he was in communion with his Ordinary.
(2) the Church is accustomed to extending faculties in ecclesia supplet situations *to its own ministers,* not to priests in a state of schism.
But it is not at all clear that individual priests of the SSPX are in schism.
“In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law” (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei)
Since the SSPX is, by definition, a priestly society, membership in the society seems to constitute formal adherence to it. Laity who merely attend SSPX chapels are plausibly in a different category, but the priests who make up the society itself seem inescapably to be in a state of formal adherence to a schism.
If the SSPX is in schism (which it certainly seems to be), then doesn’t that mean that its marriages have the same status as the marriages of the other schismatic churches? We don’t hold, for example, that Greek Orthodox marriages are invalid.
In other words, canon 1108 is only meant to apply to marriages within the Catholic Church. But if the SSPX is in schism, it’s by definition no longer a part of the Catholic Church.
Ahh, but the people who *attend* SSPX chapels typically have not formally adhered to the schism and so are still bound to observe the Catholic form of marriage (which includes having an authorized minister) since they haven’t defected from the Church by a formal act.
Two SSPX-attenders who get married in an SSPX chapel are like two Catholics who attend a non-Catholic house of worship and then get married by its minister, without a dispensation and in violation of form.
In fact, they’re not *like* people doing that. They *are* people doing that.
Jimmy,
So if two members of the SSPX who have either left the Church through a formal act or who joined the SSPX directly from some other non-Catholic/schismatic church were to get married in the SSPX, their marriage would be presumed valid?
“Given the confusion of our current time, I would not be surprised if many people going to SSPX chapels happened across them in similar circumstances. Most people probably wouldn’t think to ask their priest whether or not he was in communion with his Ordinary.”
I know of at least one instance where this was, in fact, the case.
A former aquaintance of mine (a fellow freshman at Magdalen College) was actually Confirmed in the SSPX. His family was not, by any means, “radical traditionalist.” They were simply ignorant of the Lefebvrist schism, were desperately looking for an orthodox parish, and for years began attended a Lefebvrist parish, all the while thinking they were attending a licit Mass by a Church-approved religious order.
For many years, the family received Communion, Pennance, and even Confirmations at this parish. When they finally found out the truth, they left the parish immediately and found a legitimate Indult.
Under such a circumstance, that of invinvible ignorance, I think we can presume my aquaintance’s family’s Confessions were valid.
No?
Jimmy,
But what about the marriages and such in Campos Brazil. When they were brought “back in” to the church, nothing was officially done to recognize the marriages, they were just recognized…
If they were invalid due to the SSPX schism thing, then wouldn’t they always be invalid. Yet Rome didn’t require anything when the group came back into the fold.
?
Jimmy,
I see your point–if the couple attempting marriage aren’t in schism from the Church, then they’re bound by the Church’s marriage laws. So, can you explain what constitutes adhering to the schism? What kind of a formal act could there be, since the SSPX is a society of priests, not laymen, and therefore one can’t formally “join” it? What if you were to only attend SSPX masses, declare your allegiance to the SSPX, declare that it’s the “Novus Ordo Catholics” who are in schism; what if you were to defy your bishop, and attempt to marry, and receive absolution, within the Society only; send your kids to SSPX schools; live in a SSPX community, like the one in Kansas or Idaho; would that be enough? What if you were a child born of parents who were that involved with the Society, and were brought up your whole life in this context? Is that “adherence to the schism”?
I’m describing the situation of relatives. I understand that the validity of their marriage–they attempted marriage before the schism, priest without jurisdiction officiating–is doubtful. I’m wondering if their children can validly marry within the Society.
What a mess.
COMMON ERROR is not common ignorance; the terms are not convertible, and therefore the fact that a community ignores that the priest lacks jurisdiction is not a sufficient reason for the Church to supply jurisdiction. An ERROR is required on the part of a community, whose members (or a number of them) actually believe that a priest has jurisdiction, even though in fact he does not have it. This is what we call ERROR OF FACT. However, it is a common sentence among canonists nowadays that it is sufficient to have an ERROR OF LAW, also called VIRTUAL ERROR, in order to fulfill the conditions required for the suppliance of jurisdiction. The New Code ratifies explicitly this doctrine in Canon 144, 1. Error of law consists in a FACT whose nature is sufficient to induce the error in a community, even though nobody in the community is mistaken about the lack of jurisdiction in the agent. It is not an actual error, but a fiction of law: an interpretative error, a fact that of its nature WOULD lead many in actual error. This means practically that if a priest without jurisdiction to hear confessions sits in a confessional or puts on a purple stole indicating that he is ready to hear confessions, the Church will supply his lack of jurisdiction for every absolution he will give. Surprising as it may appear, this is sound canonical doctrine.
For some time there was a doubt concerning the application of the suppliance of jurisdiction in case of common error to the assistance to marriages by a putative pastor or similar cases in which the priest did not have delegation. This was solved by a decree of the Code Commission, 26 March, 1952, which appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis 44-497 and which I transcribe in the English translation given by Bouscaren, The Canon Law Digest, vol.3, p. 76:
The Code Commission was asked: Whether the prescription of Canon 209 is to be applied in the case of a priest who, lacking delegation, assists at a marriage.
REPLY: In the affirmative. Given at Rome, from Vatican City, 26 March, 1952.
With the New Code of 1983, all controversy in this subject must definitely cease. Indeed, it is explicit in Canon 144, #2, that the norm concerning the suppliance of jurisdiction in case of common error must also be applied to the assistance to a marriage.
In the same New Code we read elsewhere a direct reference to the same exceptional case:
Ea tantum matrimonia valida sunt, quae contrahuntur coram loci Ordinario aut parocho vel diacono ab alterutro delegato qui assistant, necnon coram duobus testibus, secundum tamen regulas expressas in canonibus qui sequuntur, et salvis exceptionibus de quibus in cann. 144, 1112, #1, 1116 et 1127, ## 2-3.(New Code Canon 1108)
Jimmy,
You say that the priests of the Society are “in a state of schism”. Can you please point out from their literature a clear statement that these traditional priests deny papal authority in its premises? One quote will do. Please don’t appeal to real or apparent “disobedience” as all moral theologians are wont to point out that even prolonged pertinacious disobedience to a command of the Supreme Pontiff does not make one a “schismatic”.
Matthew:
Dude, re-read your Catechism, as well as the Code of Canon Law. Look up the Church’s traiditional (and current) definition of schism.
“Schism” is refusal to submit to the Pope. Period. No denial of papal authority is necessary, just a refusal to obey said authority.
That proposition requires further explanation of course.
“Schism and disobedience: The two things are so evidently similar, so closely related, that many confuse the two, or find difficulty in distinguishing them. . . . Cajetan [in commenting on the passage from St. Thomas we have considered above] makes some very neat and satisfying precisions. He distinguishes three points of application, or three possible motives for disobedience. First, disobedience might concern simply the matter of the thing commanded, without calling in question the authority or even the personal calibre of the superior: thus, if I eat meat on Friday because I don’t like fish, that is not schism, but simple disobedience. Secondly, the disobedience might focus on the person who holds authority, denying for one reason or another his competence in some particular case, or judging him to be mistaken, . . . while still respecting his office. This still is not schism. . . . Schism does occur when someone . . . ‘rejects a command or judgment of the Pope by reason of his very office, not recognising him as a superior, even while believing that he is’ (cum quis papæ præceptum vel judicium ex parte officii sui recusat, non recognoscens eum ut superiorem, quamvis hoc credat).” ~Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (DTC)
“not every disobedience is schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command” (Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 13, p. 529a, s.v. “Schism”)
“What should be done when the pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church…? What if the pope wanted, without reason, to abrogate positive law…? He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such a fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was
evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension.” (Sylvestro Mazzolini, De Iuridica et Irrefragabili Veritate Romanae Ecclesiae Romanique Pontificis, secs. 4 and 15)
So the question remains, where have Society priests denied the office of authority? If these men were so blatantly schismatic, as Jimmy seems to say, it should be rather easy to point out that fact in their numerous statements and theological writings. Card. Hoyos recently admitted that ABL did not “perform” a “schismatic” act. Why does Jimmy not only call ABL a ” formal schismatic” without any doubt whatsoever, but every priest formed in his traditional society? I find that rather odd considering the canonical anomolies, but other serious considerations as well, especially concerning the real state of grave and general spiritual state of necessity.
>>>”Card. Hoyos recently admitted that ABL did not “perform” a “schismatic” act.”
The Roman Pontiff has declared otherwise:
“In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act.” (Ecclesia Dei).
Lefebvre and those he ordained were manifest schismatics (and formally excommunicated). Those who seek orders from these manifest schismatics are ipso facto adhering to their schism.
Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est.
Are you accusing Cardinal Hoyos of contradicting the Supreme Authority of Rome? Do you know who Card. Hoyos is? You see, the above cited portion of Ecclesia Dei is expressed as an opinion. Note the lack of any language that would imply the sentence as being a definitive judgment. Contrast that with when JPII actually institutes the ED commission in the Letter. It is clear in that portion that he actually invokes his authority to establish the commission. If Roma Locuta Est, then why are there so many Vatican officials with different views on the matter?
“Schism” is refusal to submit to the Pope. Period. No denial of papal authority is necessary, just a refusal to obey said authority.
Eric, that is disobedience, not schism. If I disobey the Pope, then I am guilty of disobedience, but it does not follow that I am a schismatic.
Personally, out of charity I wait for a declaration from the Holy See before I start accusing people of schism. Of course this holds for Modernists as well as for the SSPX.
>>>”Are you accusing Cardinal Hoyos of contradicting the Supreme Authority of Rome?”
No, I’m accusing what you say Cardinal Hoyos said as contradicting the Roman Pontiff. Whether Cardinal Hoyos has done so has yet to be seen. You haven’t quoted anything.
>>>”You see, the above cited portion of Ecclesia Dei is expressed as an opinion. Note the lack of any language that would imply the sentence as being a definitive judgment.”
Riiiiiiiiight. So the Pope says flat out Archbishop Lefebvre were schismatics, and not only that, but to make sure that he is not kidding around, he excommunicates them to boot. Right. Can’t get any more “non-definitive” than excommunication.
“In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.”
“Eric, that is disobedience, not schism. If I disobey the Pope, then I am guilty of disobedience, but it does not follow that I am a schismatic.”
If you disobey the Pope ON A MATTER THAT THREATENS THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, then yes, you are a schismatic.
See Schism, Obedience and the Society of St. Pius X”:
http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/schism.htm
According to the Code of Canon Law: “Schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
You see, merely refusing to submit to the Pope is schismatic itself.
Not recognizing the divine right of the Pope in this regard is actually to commit the additional fault of heresy, since now you’re denying a dogma.
Riiiiiiiiight. So the Pope says flat out Archbishop Lefebvre were schismatics, and not only that, but to make sure that he is not kidding around, he excommunicates them to boot. Right. Can’t get any more “non-definitive” than excommunication.
He did not excommunicate Msgr. Lefebvre, he declared him excommunicated. There is a difference. The Pope could have excommunicated Msgr. Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated, but instead he declared that they excommunicated themselves through their own actions (ipso facto latae sententiae). The problem is that if there was no schismatic act on the part of Msgr. Lefebvre, then there is no excommunication. I, for one, do not believe that Msgr. Lefebvre was excommunicated; however, a person who has been declared excommunicated still has a duty to act as if he has been (even if he views his excommunication as invalid).
If you disobey the Pope ON A MATTER THAT THREATENS THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, then yes, you are a schismatic.
What does this mean?
The SSPX would answer that yes, indeed, they do submit to the Pope, they have “merely” disobeyed him. Not every disobedience is schism; if it were, there would be no need for a distinction between the two.
DCS:
If you read the essay I posted, you see documented detail. (See the section: “The Second Error”)
You’re right; not all disobedience is schism. But some disobedience is, even when the disobedient person acknowledges the dogma of papal primacy and infallibility.
A case-in-point is the several High-Church Anglicans who do hold to the papal dogmas, but for one or another reason choose to remain separate from the Pope.
>>>”I, for one, do not believe that Msgr. Lefebvre was excommunicated; however, a person who has been declared excommunicated still has a duty to act as if he has been (even if he views his excommunication as invalid).”
It is not your duty or your right to determine if someone is excommunicated or not. The law giver is also the law interpreter. John Paul II issued the Code of Canon Law, and gave an authoritative application of it in the case of Lefebvre and the other schismatics he ordained.
I guess Jimmy feels it’s OK to slander traditional priests. His canonical analysis was faulty and his theological analysis, is, more importantly, faulty as well. The new ecclesiology tends to get a little rigid when it comes to traditional catholics. Feel free to break off pieces of the pie (which is impossible in regards to objective divine revelation) for heretics, but hey, when you question the new orientation of catholicism, be ready to get booted by all the pop-stars! Intellectual vigor is so lacking these days.
Jimmy,
There’s another, even more important reason why SSPX sacraments are not Catholic.
That’s because Marcel Lefevbre himself was never vailidly made a bishop, or even a priest.
In both cases he was purposefully consecrated by Lienart, a French bishop who, it turns out later, was the liberal leader of Vatican II itself (the thing that Lefevbre supposedly “fought” against). But years later it was revealed that Lienart was never a member of the Catholic church, he was not a valid bishop, so he could have never made Lefevbre a bishop or even a priest.
Therefore, the SSPX is completely outside of the Catholic Church and has been from the very beginning. Now we know its true purpose: to lure all traditional Catholics away from the very battle they want to fight.
~Angel
Best online slots http://www.casino-slot-machine.net.
Online casino news october. Free casino games online. Online casino. Free online casino games.