The Validity of SSPX Confessions

[aus_cath_2]

Andrew,

1.) If I understand correctly, you are saying that the PCED letters I'm quoting lack binding authority on the faithful because the positions in them are not pronounced publicly. You state that definitive decisions are only definitive when they are made public. Is this your opinion or can you cite some authority for this proposition?

2.) The 98 letter stated "Our response to your questions may be made public." "Our" and the letterhead imply Perl is writing on behalf of ED. Plus Perl had no problem with this particular letter being made public.He also states that "statements" such as the letter should be taken as norms of moral certitude. This says to me that the statements in this letter are binding on the faithful until the Church says otherwise. True the 99 letter doesn't state that it may be made public. However, it was and the letter was written on behalf of ED as can be seen by the letter head. It was not simply a private opinion of Msgr. Perl. Who would write for a private opinion? The petitioner was obviously writing to Rome to the appropriate organism to get an official answer. He was not a personal friend of Msgr. Perl. If any of us were to write ED, Mgr. Perl, on behalf of ED would presumably tell us the same thing. In the absence of a CDF statement or the like, I would think that this statement on SSPX confession would convey Rome's thought on the matter and be binding for the present moment until such time as their position is clarified. To not follow the statement would, I think, be taking a big risk assuming Rome would eventually clarify this position or correct it. The safest course, in my mind, is to follow the guidance until something else is forthcoming.

3.) My understanding was that Campos claimed diocesan jurisdiction within the larger NO diocese. It is a good question as to what if any ordinary jurisdiction they claimed. Based on the Una Voce statement, which I have no reason to doubt, Hoyos' opinion, as head of ED, is that they were in fact in formal schism.  Of course this is all irrelevant to the question I'm asking. More relevant is if Rome tried to take some action to validate previous confessions and marriages of the Institute of the Good Shepard. I've been looking but coming up empty. Do you know one way or the other?

4.) It is curious that no mention of SSPX confessions were made in the 88 protocol. I wonder if Rome truly thinks that ignorance would cover those confessions, or simply declare them valid after the fact since the regularization, if something on the confessions was to be pronounced later, or it was assumed that future valid confessions would take care of it. I'd REALLY like an answer on this. I may write ED myself on behalf of FE!

5.) Sorry but I'm not following you on the Orthodox. My impression is that the Orthodox have ordinary jurisdiction under Canon Law. Is this true?

6.) Perl does use "schismatic" as a descriptive adjective, but in these letters goes on to explain that not all SSPX clerics "adhere to the schism". If you don't adhere to a schism, you cannot be schismatic. Plus Rome uses the term "formal schism" now to differentiate publicly pronouncing yourself as the Church from practices & beliefs that practically put you in an informal schism. I suppose this is similar to formal and material heresy.

7.) As for Rome not telling people that not doing penance on Friday is a serious sin, I think you know the answer. They are dead silent on this issue. But the fact that Rome is negligent in doing their obligation in instructing the ignorant doesn't make failing to do penance on Friday somehow right. It is still wrong, Rome simply fails in its obligation to warn/ inform the public. Same logic could be applied to SSPX confessions.

8.) I may very well approach an SSPX priest after I read the in depth discussion of the topic on the SSPX website to be fully informed of their position. I simply forsee him telling me what I've already read, but it may still be worth a try.

9.) I have not studied discernment of spirits. If you have any reading information or video you can steer me to please let me know. I find the idea fascinating. Mainly because I have no idea what to think of my experiences. The devil or the Lord could be working in any one of a myriad of ways. The devil could be leading me away from NO confessions or the Lord could be leading me to the SSPX. But my intellect currently cancels that possibility since it knows that ED says they are invalid. I agree I want to learn a lot more about discernment. However one of the rules I was taught was to follow my head and not my heart because the heart can be lead astray more easily through emotion. My conscience can't ignore a position of the PCED. If I did I'd feel like I knew the truth and I was ignoring it due to my own preferences and that I'd be condemned for that on judgment day and any sins still on my soul. I don't mean to make this judgment on you or any other SSPX goers. I'm simply telling you what my conscience would tell me. I'd have an uneasy voice inside saying it was wrong and that I need to reconfess as soon as possible to a priest with certain jurisdiction.

10.) I want to know how you would respond if a conservative NO Catholic friend asked why you are going to SSPX confession when:

a.) ED has said they are invalid except for genuine ignorance and you don't qualify.

b.) There are indult priests, FSSP priests, and conservative NO priests available with ordinary jurisdiction whose confessions are known to be valid. Why are you taking a chance with your soul?

Also a little off topic, but how would you respond to someone who asked why you are attending SSPX masses when Rome has clearly said they do not recommend doing so?

How do you respond to the claims that you are putting your own private judgment above that of the Pope and the Church?

Thanks! I do appreciate this honest discussion.

Steve

I haven't read anything in this thread but if you wondering about SSPX confessions - I have gone to them all my life and somehow still in the state of grace, receiving graces from, with a 'diocesan approved' non-doubtful conscience! ...

[Old Salt]

"haven't read anything in this thread but if you wondering about SSPX confessions - I have gone to them all my life and somehow still in the state of grace, receiving graces from, with a 'diocesan approved' non-doubtful conscience"

How do you know for sure if you are in a state of grace?

[Revixit]

"haven't read anything in this thread but if you wondering about SSPX confessions - I have gone to them all my life and somehow still in the state of grace, receiving graces from, with a 'diocesan approved' non-doubtful conscience"

How do you know for sure if you are in a state of grace?

And what does this mean: "I have gone to them all my life and somehow still in the state of grace, receiving graces from, with a 'diocesan approved' non-doubtful conscience"

I know what "I have gone to them all my life" means, of course, but I don't understand what you mean by the rest of what you wrote.

Just for starters, are SSPX confessions approved in your diocese?

[Old Salt]

re-read the post,

I was asking the previous poster the question that how does he know if he is in a state of grace if SSPX confessions are invalid.

[JMartyr]

re-read the post,

I was asking the previous poster the question that how does he know if he is in a state of grace if SSPX confessions are invalid.

Prove they are invalid.

[pilgrimtochrist]

Maybe the authorities in Rome could clarify for us where they stand on doctrine?   

Wouldn't that be wonderful!   

[Old Salt]

JMARTYR,
Forgive me, FSSPX confessions are valid if the penitent is truly ignorant that the priest does not have ordinary jurisdiction and in near event of death.
Otherwise their confessions are invalid.

From Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos formerly of the P.C.E.D.:


“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. [Invalid.  Marriages and confessions.] It remains true, however, [pay attention] 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)  [What we get into here involves a person's culpability for ignorance.  If a guy genuinely doesn't know that the SSPX priests don't have the faculties from the Church so that marriages and confessions can be valid, then the person himself is simply ignorant and, well, God takes care of him through the Church.  If he has never had the news or information about this at all, or if he has had it inadequately explained so that he doesn't get it, it doesn't stick, then he is not at fault for his ignorance - unless ... unless he either a) figured out there was something really important to this he didn't understand and, either because he was lazy or afraid of learning the truth he therefore purposely avoided more information or b) is in a position of authority or responsibility which by its very nature require him to be adequately well-informed about all those things he must deal with.  In the case of a person who could learn, but doesn't for whatever reason, we are talking about ignorance that could be overcome.  That person is in a state of vincible ignorance.  That ignorance can then either be innocent or culpable, depending on his own degree of guilt or responsibility for his own ignorance.  Then there are those who, for whatever reason, perhaps they are very stupid or perhaps they have some genuine psychological block, just can't figure out or learn they truth, this is invincible ignorance, which can't be overcome. They have far less culpability, or none, for their state.]

[JMartyr]

JMARTYR,
Forgive me, FSSPX confessions are valid if the penitent is truly ignorant that the priest does not have ordinary jurisdiction and in near event of death.
Otherwise their confessions are invalid.

From Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos formerly of the P.C.E.D.:


“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. [Invalid.  Marriages and confessions.] It remains true, however, [pay attention] 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)  [What we get into here involves a person's culpability for ignorance.  If a guy genuinely doesn't know that the SSPX priests don't have the faculties from the Church so that marriages and confessions can be valid, then the person himself is simply ignorant and, well, God takes care of him through the Church.  If he has never had the news or information about this at all, or if he has had it inadequately explained so that he doesn't get it, it doesn't stick, then he is not at fault for his ignorance - unless ... unless he either a) figured out there was something really important to this he didn't understand and, either because he was lazy or afraid of learning the truth he therefore purposely avoided more information or b) is in a position of authority or responsibility which by its very nature require him to be adequately well-informed about all those things he must deal with.  In the case of a person who could learn, but doesn't for whatever reason, we are talking about ignorance that could be overcome.  That person is in a state of vincible ignorance.  That ignorance can then either be innocent or culpable, depending on his own degree of guilt or responsibility for his own ignorance.  Then there are those who, for whatever reason, perhaps they are very stupid or perhaps they have some genuine psychological block, just can't figure out or learn they truth, this is invincible ignorance, which can't be overcome. They have far less culpability, or none, for their state.]

There's nothing to forgive. This is a discussion forum. I expect people to disagree. I am saying that canon 144 goes much further than this. Read  John Salza's defense of SSPX confessions if you have not already. Bishop Fellay has said their confessions were licit in the cases of reserved sins Rome has reviewed.           http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1031-mccall-fellay.htm               http://catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxconfessions.pdf