On Monday, news spread quickly that Pope Francis is granting priests of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) faculties to hear confessions during the upcoming Year of Mercy. Unfortunately, some misinformation about the SSPX was distributed along with the good news. Although I am in no way affiliated with the society, I have studied their situation, and I’d like to take a moment to set the record straight on some unclear and factually incorrect statements made in a ChurchMilitant.com piece by Peter O’Dwyer.
CLAIM: “The SSPX bishops do not have jurisdiction and are not in full communion, so the priests of the SSPX have never been able to absolve sins in confession”
VERDICT: FALSE
Generally speaking, the principles outlined in the article are true. Bishops with jurisdiction have to grant canonical faculties to priests in order for absolutions they grant to be valid.
However, in the past, the Vatican has not always acted toward the SSPX as if this were the case. For example, whenever an SSPX priest illicitly hears a confession that touches on one of the sins reserved to the Holy See, the SSPX forwards the proper paperwork to the Holy See to obtain permission to absolve and guidance on what penance should be administered.
Every time the SSPX has done this in the past, the Vatican said that all was “good and licit”, and treated the administration of that sacrament as it would with any priest in good standing.
We thus know that, at least in these limited cases, the Vatican has acknowledged certain absolutions granted by SSPX priests are valid.
Also of note: the Orthodox churches are not in full communion with Rome, but have jurisdiction and therefore valid confessions. So not being in “full communion” has no bearing on whether or not a group’s confessions are valid. It is specifically jurisdiction that does.
CLAIM: “the group was canonically dissolved in the 1970s”
VERDICT: FALSE
It is true that the Vatican withdrew approval for the SSPX in the 1970s. But it is not true that the approval was withdrawn in a canonical manner.
In 1975, Rome sent an Apostolic Visitation to the sole SSPX seminary. All reports indicate that the visitors did not find anything amiss at the seminary, although documentation of the visit has never been released. The visit, however, prompted Archbishop LeFebvre to write a declaration to members of the SSPX. This declaration was used as the sole justification for closing down the seminary.
Given that the justification for shutting down the SSPX was insubstantial, Archbishop LeFebvre appealed his case to the Apostolic Signatura, as was his right in canon law. He received no response whatsoever. His appeal was not rejected; it was simply never heard, or even acknowledged. This can hardly be considered canonical.
For a more thorough exploration of how the Vatican withdrew support for the SSPX, I recommend reading chapters four and five of Apologia Pro Marcel LeFebvre by Michael Davies.
CLAIM: Pope Francis’ decision is an “unprecedented act of ecumenism from the Holy Father”
VERDICT: FALSE
While this act of Pope Francis’ is unprecedented, it is not an act of ecumenism. Ecumenism describes those relationships developed between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic Christian religions. The members of the SSPX are Catholic, and have never been declared to be otherwise.
Cardinal Edward Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian unity, perhaps put it best in a 3 May 1994 letter:
“… Regarding your inquiry (March 25, 1994) I would point out at once that the Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of St. Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. The Bishops are validly, but not lawfully, consecrated…. I hope this answers your letter satisfactorily.”
CLAIM: “Previously, when asked to sign a doctrinal preamble, the current head of the SSPX, Bp. Bernard Fellay, balked.”
VERDICT: TRUE
While this claim is factually true, this bare sentence omits some important context. Bishop Fellay balked only because the Vatican, at the last minute, added new conditions to the preamble after previously negotiated, mutually acceptable conditions had already been agreed upon. If those conditions — which at some points completely contradicted the previously agreed-to-in-principle preamble — had not been added at the last minute, the SSPX might already have been integrated into full communion with Rome.
The status of the SSPX derives from certain very technical conditions which are entirely unique to their situation. There are, to my knowledge, no other groups that are described as being in “imperfect communion” or having “no canonical status” while simultaneously being considered “an internal matter of the Catholic Church” or to whom the pope would grant valid and licit status (even if only for a time) to their sacraments. While distinctions such as those I’ve made here can appear pedantic, they are the very technicalities upon which the Society’s irregular status is based. Attention to these details is of paramount importance for those wishing to fully understand this issue.
A very confusing situation made clear. Good job.
my mate’s mother makes $98 consistently on the tablet………After earning an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online….It’s time to take some action and you can join it too.It is simple,dedicated and easy way to get rich.Three weeks from now you will wishyou have started today – I promise!….HERE I STARTED-TAKE A LOOK AT…..dsm………
➤➤➤➤ http://googletopratedjobsinsidertanknetonline/earn/$98/hour…. ⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛⚛
Excellent rebuttal of Peter O’Dwyer’s piece. I would like to get some clarification on one point you bring up though: you stated that the schismatic Orthodox have jurisdiction and therefore valid confessions. My understanding is that they don’t have jurisdiction (this would imply communion with the Roman Pontiff and a canonical mandate) and that the only reason that their marriages and confessions are valid is because they are outside of the Catholic Church and therefore canon law does not apply to them – it only applies to Catholics.
My understanding (and I am open to correction if I am mistaken) is that jurisdiction is necessary for validity of these sacraments. The Catholic Church treats Orthodox sacraments as valid, therefore jurisdiction must be, somehow, at least tacitly given. Now I don’t have the first idea of *how* that’s given, or when it was given if it was. I would not be surprised if that is an open question in theology.
If I am wrong about this, though, I welcome correction.
It might be both – I thought it was because they’re outside of the Church but with valid Holy Orders. Similar to why we generally consider protestant marriages as valid even if they go before a Justice of the Peace, yet, if a Catholic does the same it is invalid.The difference being that the Catholic is bound by the laws of the Church, which requires that he marry according to due form, while a protestant is not.
Excellent, no-spin article that presents the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as it is known. Thank you, OnePeterFive, for your journalistic integrity, the last word of which is paramount in any apostolate.
Good job sinner Hawkins. Hope to see more cut and dry stuff like this on all traditional leaning sites. It certainly is making the clouds dissipate somewhat in my neck of the woods.
This really settles nothing as both gentlemen are advancing personal opinions while possessing no authority.
With all due respect, The Orthodox have always had the Jurisdiction and faculties prior to the schism – and they still retain the same (Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders ,Eucharist) after the schism- but the sspx are a different kettle of fish.
As for Mr. Davies, he was a laymen whose personal opinions, while interesting, were issued absent any authority at all; and, he made many factual errors and one could cite many authors who have come to conclusions exactly the opposite of his.
IANS is the first one to write that his personal opinions have zero authority attached to them and he has laid down his guns vis a vis opposition to the sspx but it does not do anybody any good for partisans to seize upon the personal opinions of any layman as settling anything.
It is the Church who settles these matters, not we laymen.
We have Catholic authorities who will settle the matter and it will be a test of one’s Faith to see whether the decision taken will be adhered to whether or not it favors the partisans of either side of the matter; in fact, one could advance the idea that accepting the decision of the Pope, especially if it opposes one’s will, is the test of an authentic Catholic man.
IANS does think what Franciscus did was smashing and a blessing to all partisans – pro and con – of this captious question and IANS has always prayed for a reconciliation.
First of all, people who speak in the Third Person are not to be regarded as sane, unless they are editors, popes, or royalty.
Second, the Church either has rules or it does not. It either has processes or it does not. Mr. Hawkins took the time to outline what actually transpired, and demonstrated that the known facts pertaining to the events do not correspond to those laid out by Mr. Dwyer. His clarifications presume nothing, they merely make the matter more clear. There is an agenda on the part of certain publications to try to present the Society in as negative a fashion as possible. Our aim is for accuracy, not bias, with the intended goal of full reconciliation.
Dear Steve. IANS is inured to the leaden pedantry critiques of his rhetorical style.
Mr. Hawkins personal opinion did not make anything clearer and the pro partisans of the sspx have every bit as much of an agenda as do the anti partisans of the sspx.
That’s all IANS was pointing out but he will now bow out as the wise decision taken by Franciscus has served to only intensive the emotional state of many partisans.
He did make it clearer. Clearer to me, clearer to a number of commenters here, clearer to people on Facebook, clearer to those other bloggers who have already linked to it.
Simply because your personal opinion is that his personal opinion didn’t do something doesn’t make it so.
I’ve often valued your commentary here, but almost never on this issue. And the self-assuredness with which you express certain positions borders on the same “personal magisterium” issues we see with Nicholson, Shea, et. al. Thankfully, you don’t do histrionics. I’ll take what I can get.
Dear Steve. This gentlemen actually increased the confusion about the matter and if he made it clearer to you, that is a problem.
See what Fr Z wrote about this yesterday and forget about what IANS has to write.
Thanks for your kind words and back at ya:)
What Fr. Z wrote was his opinion of what constitutes just cause, repeatedly declaring himself to be ‘right’ without backing up his statements.
The truth is as it is reported here, that certain things are what they are, confusing and contradictory, perhaps, but far from decided as Fr. Z would have others believe.
His statements such as, “…I was right” or “Wrong” based on nothing but his own interpretation is telling. Fr. Z is no canon lawyer, nor is he without his own bias as he has publicized his own position on mattes. This is why it is not good policy for particular priests to write blogs declaring, “I am right,” as justification to declare or decide that which is not decided at the highest levels.
Father Z is, however, doing his best as ‘he’ sees it. That is why his pedantic denouncement of other priests on his blog and even those posters who outline his lack of credentials when it comes to making definitive statements is often no help at all. My particular favorite of his latest attempt is the declaration that the ‘rabbit hole’ is closed. Sorry, IANS, but Fr. Z has no authority to shut down discussion of the truth, doctrine, just cause etc anywhere but on his blog.
That is why I am grateful that rational discussion is not disallowed here. And that nobody is taking the grandstanding position of declaring themselves right or ‘the’ authority on anything save the desire to pursue Truth in all pureness, despite how confusing it may seem.
I have been reading Fr. Z for many years and find it very interesting, especially the Latin translations. But I agree that it is off-putting when he shuts someone down with “the rabbit hole is closed.” Often the commenter has brought up a point that I think would be really interesting to discuss. And every now and then he does present his opinion as though it were the fact. I didn’t find his explanation of why supplied jurisdiction wasn’t applicable to be at all convincing. I’m not sure what it will take for some (rather comfortable with the status quo) priests to realize that there IS, in fact, a very serious crisis in the Church. Maybe as long as enough bodies are keeping the pews warm, they can convince themselves that there may be a spot of trouble that can be fixed by some tweaking here and there. But from where I sit, every day I am shocked not to see hellfire raining down upon us.
….Fr. Z has taken a position he must defend. I understand that and, despite what he posts for readers, I cannot help but believe that ‘he’ understands very well that the Society has a similar position that is legitimately, despite Fr. Z’s understanding of the matter, not without merit. If such were the case, there would be no exceptions regarding absolution (those already declared valid by Rome) and/or a formal declaration of schism etc. There would be no fulfilling one’s obligation at Sunday mass etc. Let’s be clear.
Father Z’s latest review of the Society response to Pope Francis’s dispositions regarding the upcoming year of mercy reveals much of the ‘snark’ that he projects onto the Society. Just like when he has to make red line commentary about ‘errors’ in the Societies response. (In truth, what with his push to promote traditional orthodox TLM priests, Father would have to be ignorant not to understand completely the critical role that the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre, in particular, play in making that possible. But to say it? No, one must tow the line. Yet another proof that Fr. Z is far from ignorant ;^)
In truth, there is no error in the Societies response, it is rather that the simple explanation of relying upon the Church supplying is not something Fr Z feels comfortable in relying upon. But since he is not in the position of having to rely on such, it makes it easier for him to speak. Not so for myriad other Catholics who for the salvation of their own soul and the proper formation of their own children are forced, thanks to the ongoing CRISIS in the Church, a crisis allowed by the very hierarchy that is withholding canonical regularity from the Society, who have been blessed with God providing. (This is why Pope Francis’s officially issuing jurisdiction out of mercy and for the good of souls is precisely what was needed to highlight the veracity of the position.)
I thank God that the Church supplies and look to that reality as proof positive that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. God bless you, Jude, and keep fighting the good fight!
Ha! My thoughts exactly.
No fair, I told you you can’t post that Cardinal Edward Cassidy quote. This is cheating.
This man is using a fake account and masquerading as a moderator for the ChurchMilitant.com site. None of his commentary comes from any of our staff. He’s being reported to Disqus.
How can you be sure, Ms. Niles? You may want to grill and, yes, perhaps fire a moderator or two over at CMTV. Maybe you could toss the offender in the “cooler” for a while. After all, it is not only posters who formerly supported CMTV that need some comic relief from the nonsense going on over at that organization.
Good grief. Take the blinders off already.
God bless you, Colonel Klink. And if you’re a real moderator, I don’t blame you one bit. Finding a good job can be hard.
Mr. O’Dwyer’s newest piece states with all certainty that the SSPX is in schism, apparently he’s doubling down on his earlier comments and trying to show that he has done his research.
Steve Kellmeyer is making the same claim.
We don’t say the “K” word around here.
Ah yes – the country’s foremost papal positivist.
I didn’t know anybody bothered to read or speak of Kellmeyer anymore.
There was a link from Pewsitter. When I see a supposedly Catholic blogger claiming that the SSPX is in schism, I just have to click and see what Kool-Aid they have been drinking.
Hey Phil. So I just got banned from Dave Armstrong’s website for supporting what you had written about the pope having spoken heresy and yet not being a heretic. Not really surprising, since he seems to have a problem with “trads and cradle Catholics” who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid.
Nothing will be clear until the Church speaks. For now, confessions okay during year of mercy. That’s it. God willing, there will be more good news ahead.
Ecumenism refers to “non-Catholic Christian religions.” What? It should read churches and communities, given that the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and (many or most) Old Catholic groups are properly considered churches and have apostolic succession, and Protestants don’t, so they are ecclesial communities…certainly they are of the same religion.
Your answer towards the claim regarding confession is unsatisfactory. Simply because the Holy See grants the faculty to lift a censure and thus for the person to receive valid absolution from an SSPX priest does not mean they aren’t treating the SSPX as if faculties come from a bishop with jurisdiction.
Some years ago Benedict XVI made it absolutely clear that the Catholic Church under the pope in Rome (all 23 rites), and the Orthodox Churches are the only entities entitled to be called churches. All others are ecclesial communities – at best. Some but not all Old Catholic priests are ordained under proper succession, and that condition applies to a tiny handful of others. Benedict certainly didn’t include any of them in his statement.
Thanks for this. One question: is the text of the doctrinal preamble available anywhere, either in its original or modified form? Or is it confidential? Would certainly be helpful to know exactly what the SSPX was being asked to assent to.
“…In a sermon given on September 2, the eve of St. Pius X’s Feast, Father Couture elaborated further, “Last June 13, Bishop Fellay received a letter from the Vatican telling him and all of us we have to accept Vatican II and the New Mass if we wanted to be approved. When they gave him this letter they also told him that we could not say that there were errors in the Council, but only in the interpretation of the Council. When Bishop Fellay heard this, he said: no, we cannot accept what you are asking because for sure there are errors in the Council texts themselves, the errors of ecumenism, of collegiality, of religious liberty. We cannot accept the errors of the Council and the New Mass. ”
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page60/no_rome_sspx_accord.html
In the interest of learning more, I was puzzled by this statement: “The visit, however, prompted Archbishop LeFebvre to write a declaration to members of the SSPX. This declaration was used as the sole justification for closing down the seminary.” May I ask you to clarify this? What was in the declaration? Thanks!
Here is the declaration: http://sspx.org/en/1974-declaration-of-archbishop-lefebvre
Excellent. Thank you!
Vox Cantoris explains the SSPX situation in logical terms today.
With regards to the jurisdiction of the SSPX from Vox Cantoris, “What the Pope has done by this masterstroke is undermine his episcopal brethren by removing their ability to use the jurisdictional argument on their local levels”.
A few facts:
CTMV deletes all opposing view points and blocks even well-known commenters
CMTV has undergone a radical transformation over the last year
CMTV moderator is still anonymous yet writes authoritatively which is incompatible with real journalism
CMTV has ideologically-motivated financial backing
CMTV promotes their viewpoints in a highly-dogmatic manner though their staff is unqualified
CMTV answers no questions regarding any of the above facts
It seems the right way to deal with them, probably 95% of the time going forward, is to probably just ignore them. The summary could be as follows:
CMTV is not a news organization. It is a sectarian organization dedicated to dividing the Body of Christ, while hiding behind a pretense of objectivity.
This is a reasonable position to hold on CMTV. So, we are not sure what CMTV is exactly at this point. I had supported them financially either monthly or from product purchases since the beginning. As of today, I have removed them from Facebook, Feedly, email newsletters, etc. That is refreshing.
Voris could change all of this tomorrow if he wanted. But that is not where things are at right now.
They are a blight, smoke in the eyes, vinegar to the teeth. Instead of reporting the news, they insert themselves into it.
They have received admonitions from all quarters – many from their subscribers – to modify their behavior. All have received the high hand in response.
I, for conscience sake, have rebuked them in private correspondence, well in advance of what has transpired recently. I saw it coming and said something (because I had a dog in the fight – my premium subscription), but who didn’t see this coming?
TL;DR
Do not financially support CMTV, and do not directly link to them directly from blogs or social media websites.
1 Cor 5:5
“…deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”
“This is a reasonable position to hold on CMTV. So, we are not sure what
CMTV is exactly at this point. I had supported them financially either
monthly or from product purchases since the beginning. As of today, I
have removed them from Facebook, Feedly, email newsletters, etc. That is
refreshing”
Fully agree with you. Exact same experience. You have stated it well. Been there. Done that.
How I wish that CMTV would allow themselves to be questioned on their views. They speak the same Catholic language as does the Society of St. Pius X, they both have the same goals in mind. So why does CMTV bash the Society? Maybe the SSPX should question CMTV directly. This is a major confusing case and the confusion was initiated by CMTV.
+++Muller, CDF chief, is reported [Catholic Conclave / Die Tagespost] that a split of Reformation proportions is imminent. That centred upon the thinking and machinations of +++Kasper, Marx, et al and heretically based. Where does the issue of SSPX Faculties, etc., lay in the scale of things compared to the de facto heretical situation pertaining in Germany and the European Low Countries? Anti-SSPX sentiments are ill-founded.
It may be a common theory in Rome, but the Eastern schismatics have never been declared to have jurisdiction authoritatively. Everyone takes it for granted, but its simply an opinion. I do not believe the Easterners have jurisdiction. Having jurisdiction while outside the Church itself seems to be completely untenable to me. The SSPX however, are in the Church, so on that note this is a good article.
This link points to a forum post showing possible inconsistencies between Vatican II and what preceded it. Since I collected the quotations, I made any mistakes you might find in the quotations. But I don’t know of any.
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=29130.0
Here’s a video where Kennedy Hall argues that the SSPX is already in “full communion.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p3YwqvxL-s