www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology No Progress with Vatican says SSPX

The univeral "indult" to say the Pius V missal is the sticky point !!!!!!!!!!!

The society woln't come into the fold until this occurs.

It's one thing for a Roman Catholic to attend an SSPX liturgy, but it's quite another thing, to my mind at least, for him or her to receive the eucharist from an SSPX priest -- hence a priest with whom he or she is not in full communion.

That kind of inter-communion isn't ecumenism -- or if it is, it is only a kind of liberal "fringe" ecumenism. (The irony here is pretty obvious: the SSPX are always speaking out against ecumenism and liberalism.)

I'll stop there since the intercommunion topic has been covered pretty thoroughly in the recent "Ecumenism takes a step backwards" thread.

Dear Bob,

That's a pretty radical claim that you're making. Can you give some kind of reference that we check out?

I think you and I agree, however, on the most important point: that there it very wrong for any Roman Catholic to receive the Eucharist from an SSPX priest.

You may be right about that (I can't say for certain) but it doesn't necessarily follow that the person in question is "not a Catholic". There are a lot of situations in which a person is in full communion with the pope, but still could not receive communion until after confession.

-Peter.

Neil,
In the Western thought a number of the Sacraments need faculties from the local ordinary to be vaild. Those would be confession, confirmation, baptism, and marriage.

Now, granted those Sacraments can be done in the danger of death, but I find it highly unlikely that a marriage would be done in the danger of death.

Also the SSPX is handing out annulments.


David, Byzantine Catholic and Carmelite pre-novice (postulant really)

Dear Friends,

Up here, we have had a number of active SSPX chapels which were and continue to be attended by mainstream RC's. They even started to build a cathedral somewhere up north (further north ).

Our Cardinal Archbishop then allowed more Tridentine liturgies to be celebrated in Toronto and elsewhere.

Add to this that a priest up here who was the chaplain who worked on the screen of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" decided to become "Tridentine only" and issued an open letter to the Cardinal saying that "we have made a mistake by introducing the Novus Ordo" etc. etc.

And SSPXers do go on pilgrimage to the Martyrs' Shrine and they are allowed to use the Church etc.

So the lines that separate the SSPX are really rather blurred up here.

Alex
the Ukrainian Catholic and Benedictine oblate novice (doing the best he can, actually)

Can a bishop allow a "metropolitan indult" to allow universal indult within his see?

No I do not think so.

According to the document that allows diocesean bishops to grant an indult for the celebration of the "Tridentine" Mass.

It says under the conditions for allowing the use of the 1962 Missal the following.

"b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases."

So you can see it can only be granted to groups that specifically request it as it explicitly states in the paragraph before the listed conditions, "who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop".

I found this at the Adoremus website.

Here is the link to the document; Congregation for Divine Worship an...s. Circular Letter Quattuor abhinc annos [adoremus.org]

I would like to add that the "indult" is granted by the local ordinary to a named individual priest, and not to the parish itself nor to a group within such parish.

The known exception to this process is the outright grant of the "indult" (by Pope John Paul II) to the FSSP and to the "Institute of Christ the King" worlwide and to the "Society of St. John Cantius" here in the U.S. I think there are other male religious orders which have been granted indults as a group.

The relative dearth of grants of TLM indults (worldwide) is due primarily to the dearth of priests (pre-Vatican II priests are diminishing rapidly) who can truly celebrate the TLM in its original rubrics.

Thus, the more priests trained in the celebration of the TLM (which is spearheaded by the FSSP, the Institute of Christ the King, and the Society of St. John Cantius) the more indults will be granted eventually!

By the way, St. John Cantius Parish (Chicago) also celeberates the Novus Ordo in Latin, which is as beautiful and as reverent as the TLM, in my opinion!

Amado

DavidB,

The SSPX have their own answers to the jurisdictional questions. I don't agree with them, but I would suggest reading them. Go here: http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q9_jurisdiction.htm and http://www.sspx.org/MISCELLANEOUS/validity_of_confessions_1.htm Not that we should agree, but it is good to at least learn where they're coming from. Just like we don't agree with certain Eastern Orthodox positions or Protestant ones, but we should hear people out.

Neil, I do think David is correct about confession and marriage validity, though. Taken from the second site abovelisted:

Just to make it clear, I never told anyone to take Communion in an SSPX church, and neither have I ever done so myself!

Alex,

Ironically, I think a great good given us by the SSPX is that the Society's success often forces reluctant bishops to allow the Indult in their dioceses. The tragedy is that they shouldn't need prodding from an outside source since JPII told them to be "generous" in the application of the Indult!

Logos Teen

Peter_B:

This is not a radical claim. Rather it is the end result of receiving the Eucharist outside the communion of the Church. If you break the Church's discipline and enter communion with another church or ecclesial body, what does that make you?

Communion is a many-layered experience. It involves not only the intimate and ultimate reception of the Lord Himself. It also involves accepting every layer of doctrine that the bishop from whom the priest who serves receives his faculties holds. Alternatively, it makes one "at-one" with the minister and the doctrine of his ecclesial body, if he be a Protestant.

I have had lengthy discussions with my spiritual fathers over the years and they have confirmed this position. While they have asked me to try for a bit more sensitivity in how I state this to individuals--and as a matter of actual practice, I try to stay away from this type of situation--when I am put in a position to be a witness, I don't hold back the truth. And the truth is that a Catholic who receives from a Protestant minister, for example, commits three serious (mortal) sins: heresy, apostasy, and blasphemy. Heresy by attaching himself to doctrines that deny apostolic orders, the Real Presence, the discipline of the Church regarding what is demanded of us by baptism in staying within the fold of the Church, and some other areas you may find in the CCC. Interestingly enough, while a Protestant born into his ecclesial community cannot be held to be a heretic, a Catholic who joins one such community becomes one.

Apostasy comes in because one rejects some or all of the truths taught by the Church by rejecting her injunction against this activity and joining oneself to a body that rejects her, her authority, and her doctrine. Blasphemy comes in when one makes any response to a minister who may say "the Body of Christ" or any other words that would indicate that the bread offered is something which it is not--because of the lack of orders. Some might call this "artolatry": bread worship--because the worship due to God alone, especially in the Eucharist, is given to something that the person offering it has no power to change into the Body of Christ. Beyond that there is the issue of scandal to those who are also in the Church with us and who may take our example as normative, especially if they perceive us as knowledgeable.

This is serious stuff. This is playing with one's immortal soul. The issue of communion is far more than one presenting oneself at the front of a church building of one's choice or when one is curious about how others do it.

I might add that I have a cousin who told me once that she saw no difference in receiving sacraments in a Protestant church and in her Catholic parish. Because I was in a family gathering and because my own children heard this, I had no choice but to speak the truth boldy, clearly, and without equivocation. I told her what I have written above. When I challenged her to ask our pastor, he told her that while I was "perhaps not as pastorally sensitive" in how I stated the case, I was right on the money in what I had told her.

Sometimes a mistaken approach to these things is seen as "ecumenical" or "pastorally sensitive," but in reality so many have forgotten that this Mystery is to be approached with great fear and reverence. Too many don't know the implications of the many levels of communion and get themselves into trouble because of it.

May I suggest you begin your study with a copy of the CCC. Begin with the sections listed in the index on Christ, the Eucharist, and the Church: paragraphs 1400, 1399, 2089, and 2182 come immediately to mind. I have a suggested reading schedule that will take you through this entire work in a year's time with just a few minutes per day. Then take your questions to your parish priest. Again, Christianity IS NOT a "do-it-yourself" walk. We need to stay plugged in to our regular spiritual father, assuming first we have sought out one who is sound and orthodox.

The matter of the Eastern Churches with whom we do not share communion are not in the same category, but there is still sin involved when we break communion with our own Church. The Catholic bishops of the United States clarified the situation in the United States by saying that there are no emergency situations that would allow us to approach a priest not of our own communion to receive the sacraments since we have so many churches and clergy of our own here and can practice the Faith openly. That one goes back many years--and I can't put a year on it it's been that long.

In all this, it is our obligation to remember the charity that does not place any of those who do not share communion with us in an uncomfortable situation. The Orthodox Churches do not allow those not in communion with them to receive. It's uncharitable to ask them to break their own discipline because their approach to the Mysteries is our own: we don't practice open communion.

In Christ,

BOB

Logos Teen,

Speaking for myself, I never thought you had done so or encouraged anyone else to. My reason for responding to your post is that I feared that some might interpret your statement:

in a positive light. (Hence, I pointed out that reception of communion by RCs from an SSPX priest is inter-communion precisely because the communicant is Catholic, and hence not in full communion with the priest he/she is receiving from.)

God bless,
Peter.

I must say that although the Syriac Orthodox-RC dialogue hasn't yet produced full intercommunion, there is official sanction allowing limited communion (but not concelebration). Here is the texts pertaining to this (but always ask your and the celebrating priest for clarification before attempting anything): Another official statement by the Patriarch only adds to the confusion: Finally, the Agreement on Inter-Church Marriages between the Catholic and Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, 1994 states:

David and Garrett,

I think that the question as to how "validity" is interpreted in that particular usage requires looking at instances such as the entry into communion with Rome of persons formerly of various Old Catholic Churches (PNCC or otherwise), Old Catholic-type Churches (the American Old Catholic bodies whose ties to Utrecht are long since severed), Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, or a myriad of other "independent Catholic" bodies. All are generally accomplished simply by profession of faith and none ordinarily require that the Sacrament of Marriage be repeated for validity, nor is a "life confession" (not uncommon among the Orthodox for those received into communion, even from other Apostolic Churches) required.

It's relatively long-established that the Church does not presume that jurisdictional grant of faculties by hierarchs has application to those who are operating outside it. Once a presbyter places himself outside the jurisdiction of the Church, Canon Law's application to him pertains principally to what he must do to return to the Church. It is not akin to the civil world, in which the law has equal applicability to both citizens and non-citizens. Since the hierarchy and clergy of the SSPX have placed themselves outside the authority of Rome, their situation is (for all intents and purposes) essentially no different than that of the PNCC and others - the sole difference of note is that they have not, as yet, declared themselves to be a "Church" and I can't find anything that convinces me that would make a difference.

The validity of Sacraments conferred by clerics who are outside the Church from the outset (were born into a "Catholic" Church already separated from Rome or entered into such a Church from another faith) or who have placed themselves outside of it depends firstly on the validity of their own priestly orders. Thereafter, if the minister has valid orders (regardless of the line through which he has same) form, matter, and intent are the considerations at issue that separate the questions of validity versus licity. And, sad to say - because Rome until now has elected to rely on the Augustinian theory of validity, rather than the Cyprianic, there are a myriad of valid lines out there - see my post at Communion with Rome essential for valid Orders? and the posts by Incognitus and myself at the thread Vagant "bishops". How can they be still valid? .

The provisions you cite have regard solely to the validity of Sacraments confected by a priest who is in communion with Rome.

Many years,

Neil

PS to Theophan:

Bob, old friend,

It's only been 18 months since you asked me for a link to one of those Augustinian-Cyprianic threads, but I finally found it . There's hope yet for we old-timers (and the search function here :rolleyes: )

I think that makes a difference, since SSPX still claim itself part of Catholic Church (unlike other instances like Patriotic Church that declares the body is independent from Catholic Church).

In this light, it is even more important to have mandate from local ordinaries to perform the sacraments.

Except if SSPX deem itself as and independent body outside of Catholic Communion, and the Catholic Church too agree with it, then the case with SSPX will always still under the ordinaries jurisdiction.

I will submit this letter from the Ecclesia Dei Commission concerning SSPX Masses, it comes to one thought...your intent...love of the old liturgy and remaining in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

james