Why I left the SSPX

[pascendi]

Pascendi,

Are you familiar with the priests of Campos?  They trace their lineage to Bishop Castro Mayer who was excommunicated along with Archbishop Lefebvre.  When the reconciled with Rome in 2000, Rome didn't order their faithful to re-confess past their sins.

Why would Rome do this?  They were in the same situation as SSPX...

I think there's a bit of a contradiction, it seems, in your particular position, being that your position is as you said is a bit different than the others.  If you agree that they are in schism, since you say they were excommunicated (I don't know your position on this matter), then they wouldn't have been supplied faculties by the Church anyways because the Church supplies for its own ministers only if I'm not mistaken.

I don't know enough about Campos to comment on their situation or what Rome has or hasn't done about it.  But an thorough examination, I'm sure MeaCulpa, is not going to produce an argument that people are free now free to seek sacraments which require validity from any priest without jurisidiction for any reason.

[StevusMagnus]

I started to realize that my SSPX confessions were much more efficacious and lead to spiritual improvement, whereas my NO confessions were leading to repeated failure.

Would this not be proximate to questioning the canons of the Council of Trent?  This is why I brought the matter of Trent up earlier.  Take a look at these canons, following one after another, from the seventh session of the Council of Trent concerning the sacraments:

No. I never claimed the NO sacrament was not valid, just that in my experience it was not as efficacious. There is more to the sacrament than just validity. The entire ethos of the experience was liberal/ modernistic and did not, by its nature, inspire the correct disposition to receive the graces of the sacrament. In fact they worked against it. In addition NO priests don't recognize that a lot of the Masses they say are sacrileges and don't understand Traditional Catholic morality. Many also believe in ecumenism and religious liberty which were both previously condemned by the Church.

It would be much like confessing to an Arian priest in the time of St. Athanasius. But at least Arian priests used an ancient form of the sacrament. Today some NO confessions are doubtful because the priest no longer has the corret intention.

All in all the SSPX confessions are the safer route. The SSPX Chapels & priests assist in creating the proper disposition and thus increase the efficacy of the sacrament. The form also clearly manifests the Church's intention so there are no worries there.

But it should be quite obvious that the final result of your studies is that it doesn't practically matter if a priest has ordinary jurisdiction or not.  But it DOES matter.  Perhaps more investigation is required, if the theory does not fit the facts.

It does matter whether a priest has ordinary jurisdiction. If they don't have it then you look to whether it is supplied.

Furthermore Rome has issued no official statement or ruling definitively clarifying this matter.

But it does sanitize these situations, doesn't it? 
 It moves to correct mistakes that have been made in the provision of the sacraments.  When some sort of reconciliation happens, it moves to validate.  This should also serve as a red flag to your position.

I know of no Roman sanations of SSPX or Campos confessions or marriages.
If you know of some sanation documents please post them. In the agreement with the SSPX Rome only provided for sanation ad cautalem as to marriages which means to be on the safe side. So even Rome admits SSPX marriages could be valid, against your claim that they are invalid. But that provision is now obsolete since Rome had the diocese in Africa add the SSPX marriages to the register without any sanation.

Millions of souls have always been at stake, and prayer and sacrifices are the only weapons we really have to contribute to a genuine solution.  Most of everything else, like the apparent need to even have this conversation, is a wasted effort.  People need to obtain the sacraments.  They don't have to have them specially packaged according to their own desires.  It's a bit late in the game for that now, I'd say.

Again, the situation is obviously confusing, so Rome would have a moral obligation to issue a definitive ruling on these confessions. The fact that they have not shows that they consider SSPX confessions and marriages valid.

[StevusMagnus]

I'm sure MeaCulpa, is not going to produce an argument that people are free now free to seek sacraments which require validity from any priest without jurisidiction for any reason.

None of us have ever taken this position, yet you continually argue against it. Why?

[StevusMagnus]

QUESTION 9
     DO TRADITIONAL PRIESTS HAVE JURISDICTION?                                                                                                        

  In virtue of his ordination, a priest can  bless all things and even consecrate bread and wine in such wise that they  become the very Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But whenever in his  ministry he has to deal authoritatively with people, he needs, over and above  the power of Orders, that of Jurisdiction, which empowers him to judge and rule  his flock. Jurisdiction is, moreover, necessary for the validity itself of the  sacraments of penance and matrimony.  

Now, the sacraments were given by Our Lord as the ordinary and principal means of salvation and sanctification. The Church, therefore, whose supreme law is the salvation of souls (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1752), wants the ready availability of these sacraments, and especially penance (canon 968). The Church wants priests (canon 1026) and empowers them liberally to hear confessions (canon 967, §2). This jurisdiction to hear confessions is to be revoked only for a grave reason (canon 974, §1).

Jurisdiction is ordinarily given by mandate from the pope or diocesan bishop, or perhaps delegated by the parish priest. The priests of the SSPX do not have jurisdiction in this way. Extraordinarily, however, the Church supplies jurisdiction without passing by the constituted authorities. This is foreseen in the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

•    

  when      the faithful think the priest has a jurisdiction which he does not have      (canon 144) [common error],  

•    

  when there is a probable and positive doubt that the priest has jurisdiction (canon 144),  

•    

  when a priest inadvertently continues to hear confessions once his faculties have expired (canon 142, §2), and  

•    

  when the penitent is in danger of death (and then even if the priest is laicised or an apostate, even though a Catholic priest is at hand) (canons 976, 1335).

Therefore, the Church, wanting the ready availability of penance, extraordinarily supplies jurisdiction in view of the needs of her children, and it is granted all the more liberally the greater their need.

Now, the nature of the present crisis in the Church is such that the faithful can on good grounds feel it a moral impossibility to approach priests having ordinary jurisdiction. And so, whenever the faithful need the graces of penance and want to receive them from priests whose judgment and advice they can trust, they can do so, even if the priests do not ordinarily have jurisdiction. Even a suspended priest can do this for the faithful who ask:  “for any just cause whatsoever” (canon 1335). This is even more the case if a faithful Catholic can foresee his being deprived of the true sacrament of penance from priests with ordinary jurisdiction until he dies. Only God knows when this crisis will end.

The extraordinary form for marriages is foreseen in canon 1116, §1. If the couple cannot approach their parish priest “without serious inconvenience” —and they may consider as such his insistence on having the Novus Ordo Missae for the wedding, or their apprehensions concerning his moral teaching in marriage instructions —and if they foresee these circumstances to last for at least a month, then they can marry before witnesses alone, and another priest (e.g., of the SSPX) if possible (canon 1116, §2).
 
 Even if one were to consider the above arguments as only probable, then jurisdiction would still be certainly supplied by the Church (canon 144).

And so we must answer affirmatively. Traditional priests do have a jurisdiction that is neither territorial nor ordinary but supplied in view of the needs of the faithful.              

[StevusMagnus]

Can a traditional Catholic go to  confession to a Novus Ordo priest?

It would certainly be valid to go to confession to a  priest who still celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass, provided that the  penitent were assured of the doctrinal orthodoxy of the priest, his intention of  doing what the Church does, and his use of the correct formula of absolution. It  would furthermore be permissible in a state of necessity, such as when a person  is dying and no traditional priest can be found.

However, it is not easy to have the assurance of a valid  absolution, given the fact that the post-Conciliar Church consistently  downgrades the reality and gravity of mortal sin, the benefits of confessing  venial sins, the graces to be obtained from frequent confession, and the  necessity of doing penance. Very often souls who have felt the urgent need to go  to a Novus Ordo priest have come to me afterwards in confession, doubting  the validity of their confession to this priest, on account of his trivializing  of their sins.

Furthermore, I do not hesitate to strongly recommend  against going to confession to such a priest, even when there is an assurance of  a valid absolution. A penitent does not go to confession simply to receive the  absolution of his sins. He has the desire to receive all the effects of the  sacrament, including the direction, and if need be reprimand of the confessor,  growth in the love of God and in sanctifying grace, a firmer purpose of  amendment and the satisfaction of the temporal punishment due to his sins. All  this is only possible if he sees in the confessor a judge, a teacher, and a  physician. It is to guarantee these full effects of the sacrament of Penance  that the Church supplies jurisdiction so that the faithful can ask any priest to  hear their confessions, for any just reason (canon 2261, §2, 1917 Code  and canon 1335 of the 1983 Code).

Manifestly it is not possible to  have confidence in the guidance of a priest who compromises with modernism by  celebrating the New Mass, even if he otherwise appears orthodox. Neither his  judgment as to the reality of our contrition, nor his instruction as to the  gravity of our sins, nor his remedies for the ills of our sins can be depended  upon. The supernatural vision of Faith will necessarily have been undermined by  the humanism and naturalism of the New Mass and the spirit of Vatican II. Our  souls are much too precious to place in the hands of those who lack conviction.

Consequently, outside case of  danger of death, it is preferable to make an act of perfect contrition, and to  wait until one can open one’s soul to a traditional priest that can be trusted.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

[pascendi]

No. I never claimed the NO sacrament was not valid, just that in my experience it was not as efficacious. There is more to the sacrament than just validity.

The grace comes from the sacrament ex opere operato.  I'm sorry, but the Novus Ordo sacrament cannot be less effective.  It does not matter how it feels or appears to anyone.  Again, however, the counsel might leave much to be desired.  On this we might agree.  But the sacrament less efficacious?  It cannot be.

The entire ethos of the experience was liberal/ modernistic and did not, by its nature, inspire the correct disposition to receive the graces of the sacrament. In fact they worked against it. In addition NO priests don't recognize that a lot of the Masses they say are sacrileges and don't understand Traditional Catholic morality. Many also believe in ecumenism and religious liberty which were both previously condemned by the Church.

You have no control how well other people believe and live the Catholic Faith.  All that you have control over is whether you do well.  These people are not insurmountable obstacles.  They have to be overcome by you, and me, and everyone else.

It would be much like confessing to an Arian priest in the time of St. Athanasius. But at least Arian priests used an ancient form of the sacrament. Today some NO confessions are doubtful because the priest no longer has the corret intention. Also there are questions of validity regarding their ordination in the New Rite, especially if performed by a Bishop who was consecrated in the New Rite. The New Rite stripped language regarding sacrificing priest as the Anglicans did. And, as you know, the Anglican ordination rite was declared invalid due to lack of form.

Stop worrying about all these things.  They only serve as an obstacle to your own spiritual advancement.  Your weapons are your devotion to Mary and your scapular and the reception of the sacraments and the avoidance of sin, and all the rest of those simple things Catholics who wanted to be saved have always latched onto from the very beginning.  Most of the above worries, should I adopt them and I never will, would have no term except my separation from the sacraments.  Many have no basis whatsoever.  What contradiction I would have placed myself in if I had ever allowed these worries any entry.  If I were to worry about these things, I would have enticed myself, for instance, into quitting adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in the local Novus Ordo parish.  What would I have gained for myself?  I refuse to believe I am worshipping a cookie, and if I did act upon that worry, nothing more than removal from the presence of Jesus Christ would be the result.  But that's too high a price to pay for needless worry.

But it should be quite obvious that the final result of your studies is that it doesn't practically matter if a priest has ordinary jurisdiction or not.  But it DOES matter.  Perhaps more investigation is required, if the theory does not fit the facts.

It does matter whether a priest has ordinary jurisdiction. If they don't have it then you look to whether it is supplied.

Could it be the case that doubt about the validity of Novus Ordo ordinations is at the root of this matter for you?  I don't wish to read you incorrectly, but it seems to be taking this turn.

[pascendi]

I'm sure MeaCulpa, is not going to produce an argument that people are free now free to seek sacraments which require validity from any priest without jurisidiction for any reason.

None of us have ever taken this position, yet you continually argue against it. Why?

Because it is actually the position taken.

[Caminus]

pascendi, I'm sure you are aware that in addition to the bestowal or increase of sanctifying grace there is such thing as the 'sacramental grace.' 

In addition, it is not healthy to say, "Cling to these things and to hell with everything else."  Catholicism is much more rich and integrated than the devout nominalist would have it. 

[StevusMagnus]

No. I never claimed the NO sacrament was not valid, just that in my experience it was not as efficacious. There is more to the sacrament than just validity.

The grace comes from the sacrament ex opere operato.  I'm sorry, but the Novus Ordo sacrament cannot be less effective.  It does not matter how it feels or appears to anyone.  Again, however, the counsel might leave much to be desired.  On this we might agree.  But the sacrament less efficacious?  It cannot be.

And yet I'm telling you it was. As I explained (and you yet again ignored), we only receive grace through the sacraments to the extent we are properly disposed. The whole orientation of my NO parish was such that it worked against forming the proper penitential disposition. The SSPX orientation serves to bolster and strengthen my disposition. Thus I was much more open to the grace of the sacrament. This is verifiable from the fruits. My spiritual life and aversion to the sins I confessed grew considerably after I begun confessing to an SSPX priest. With the NO confessions, my resolutions were weaker and I much more easily fell into the same sin.

Pascendi, I once was where you are now. Believing I had to suffer all sorts of horrid abuses and nonsense out of an obligation to be "obedient to Rome". The irony is that most of these NO parishes are less "obedient to Rome" than the SSPX Chapels! We must work out our salvation through dedicated prayer and devotion and the sacraments. The NO sacraments in my diocese offer nothing but an obstacle to the true Faith. Frequent attendance there leads to a visible diminution in spiritual fervor and also to an indifferentist, Modernist mindset over time. We must make use of whatever spiritual goods are available in this crisis in order to save our souls. If the local Bishop is unlawfully denying a common good of the Church to you, you have the right to obtain those goods outside the Diocesan structure.

I notice in another thread you state you have been to SSPX Masses in the past and you do counsel people to attend SSPX Masses if they like. This is good as you do understand Rome's current position is not opposed to Mass attendance.

However, I think you are limiting yourself, as I once did, to an undeclared and unofficial mindset, fostered by Rome's inaction, as to what is allowable and what is not concerning the SSPX's other sacraments. Rome has never officially declared SSPX confessions invalid and has never stated that jurisdiction is not supplied. Since the law of supplied jurisdiction applies to the factual situations of SSPX priests through, not just one, but various Canons, on their face, this is the mind of the Church until the Supreme legislator rules otherwise.

This mindset has been shown already by Rome's recording of SSPX marriages in diocesan records in Africa without sanation and no sanation or admonition for Campos faithful to give general confessions. In addition a friend of mine who went over to the FSSP after the '88 consecrations attended a conference with the new FSSP priest (formerly SSPX). Someone in the audience asked the question as to what Rome's position was on their previous confessions with the SSPX and if they would have to reconfess all of those sins. The FSSP priest said that Rome's position was that they were valid and there was no need to reconfess.

Pascendi, perhaps, in time, you will come to realize, like I did that Rome recognizes the truth on this matter. They recognize both that the Abp. was never really excommunicated under Canon Law and that jurisdiction is supplied for the Society's sacraments. They know these things just as Rome knew for 40 years that the TLM was never abrogated, but never said so officially. They simply leave the unofficial impression, the "stigma" out there and do nothing to correct it.

Little by little you see the truth leaking out. First, Mass attendance at SSPX chapels was strictly forbidden and even carried with it a possible automatic excommunication!  And the Society was then considered most definitely in schism. Then later on, they declared the Society wasn't really in "formal schism". Rather they were in "imperfect communion". Then later it was actually ok to attend their Masses (previously forbidden) and they even were declared ok to fulfill one's Sunday obligation!

Compare to the following situation. First the TLM was banned, considered replaced. The NO Mass was mandatory. Then later a commission decided the TLM was never forbidden. Then came the "indult" of 84. Then the wider "indult" of 88. Then finally 20 years later the admission....the TLM was never abrogated all along!

The same principles are at work here. The bottom line is that you cannot point to one official legislative pronouncement by Rome that SSPX priests do not have supplied jurisdiction. Rome is silent on purpose. Because they know the SSPX sacraments are valid (as I showed with the instructions they gave Gabon, no sanation for campos or SSPX faithful who switched to the FSSP, etc.)

So believe what you will personally as to the validity of SSPX confessions and marriages but do not try to force your views on others. Especially when the Church has not made an official declaration on the matter. To do so reeks of hubris, as echoed in your unsolicited admonitions to your Traditional brothers on what they must do to be saved.

You have no control how well other people believe and live the Catholic Faith.  All that you have control over is whether you do well.  These people are not insurmountable obstacles.  They have to be overcome by you, and me, and everyone else.

I have indeed overcome them quite well. I now go to a Catholic church and have eliminated the problem entirely. They no longer bother me in the least! ;)

Could it be the case that doubt about the validity of Novus Ordo ordinations is at the root of this matter for you?  I don't wish to read you incorrectly, but it seems to be taking this turn.

No, the heart of the matter is contained in the article I posted, entitled, " Can a traditional Catholic go to confession to a Novus Ordo priest?" which you have no doubt not read.

[pascendi]

pascendi, I'm sure you are aware that in addition to the bestowal or increase of sanctifying grace there is such thing as the 'sacramental grace.'

Yes.  I don't believe anything I said ran counter to this.

In addition, it is not healthy to say, "Cling to these things and to hell with everything else."

It depends on the what these things and everything else consists of.  If these things are defined dogmas, and everything else are truths of the Catholic Faith which are undefined, then you would be correct.  However, if these things are what the Church demands of us, and everything else are the opinions of others which come into conflict with these things, then it most certainly is a truly healthy approach.

Catholicism is much more rich and integrated than the devout nominalist would have it. 

But of course.  It's also much more rich than what can be possibly be attained by those who have limited the Mystical Body of Christ to those who identify with the cause for the restoration of the latin liturgy.  When one's sense of being right with God and living the devout life equates with open identification with vocal groups whose reason for being is to right the wrongs in the Church, when the crisis ceases to be, they may find themselves only lukewarm.