Posted on 01/30/2013 2:59:30 PM PST by NYer
Ping!
/johnny
SSPX is the “Society of St. Pius X,” that is, Pope Pius the 10th, who was Pope ... oh, early in the 20th Century. Nice fellow, the children’s biography of him is titled “The Farm Boy Who Became Pope,” because of his background in rural poverty.
The SSPX branched off from the “regular” Catholic Church in the 60s or 70s. You’re probably not interested in why, or where that puts them under Canon Law.
Haven’t they been regularized already? If not - thank you for posting this. Good info to have.
The SSPX is a traditionalist organization, founded in 1970 without approval. The Vatican has been in negotiations with them for decades. The Catholic Church does not recognize the priests ordained under the renegade bishop.
This is interesting. I would not have thought of it’s being an issue, because the SSPX priests are validly ordained. The point about “simulating a sacrament” makes sense, if the penitent knows that a valid absolution requires diocesan faculties, and knows a SSPX priest doesn’t have faculties, then clearly there’s a sense of defiance, just as if a person who wasn’t free to marry went through a marriage ceremony.
On the other hand, one could confess to a layperson, simply as a pious exercise in penitence, and that wouldn’t bring this area of canon law up at all.
Is it an express sin as stated in the bible? Than no, it is not.
Actually, being involved with Linux, I do follow forking and re-integration of the kernel. So yes, I am interested. Thank you for the information. All of you.
I shall leave you to your caucus and bother you no more.
/johnny
I thought they had approval in the beginning, but went afoul when Lefebvre consecrated bishops without JPII’s permission.
If you confess, in good faith, to a person you know is a priest, your confession is valid but may be illicit if the priest is hearing the confession without the faculties granted by the local bishop except in cases of emergency. If the priest is hearing confessions without the appropriate faculties, the moral onus is on the priest, not the penitent. That’s the difference between illicit and invalid. The penitent’s actions are valid. The priest’s actions are illicit. In an emergency - accidents, imminent death etc - confession to a priest is valid and licit. Even a “former” priest may absolve in those situations. Canon law always operates to the benefit of the faithful while governing the actions of the minister.
No ... SSPX Dialogue Continues: “Patience, Serenity, Perseverance, and Trust are Needed”
You will not hear heresy within the confessional from an SSPX priest. You will, frequently, from a mainstream diocesan priest ordained and living under the subversive influences of VII. Even to be told that sins you know are sins “are not sins”. I personally would avoid the question of whether the SSPX absolution is valid by going to an FSSP priest, instead, who at least get the liturgy and sacramental traditions right.
Thanks for the correction!
While the priests are validly ordained, they are suspended a divinis.
On the other hand, one could confess to a layperson, simply as a pious exercise in penitence, and that wouldn’t bring this area of canon law up at all.
I don't mean to laugh but that brings up a situation here where, an individual who studied to become a deacon but never completed the program, has been visiting local area prisons and hearing confessions. He is a bizarre individual who, when turned away by one of the most progressive dioceses, became vindictive. He is a very confused individual. Your comment also reminds me of a story I heard years ago, about a Jewish man who would go to confession at St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC. The priest, of course, could not give him absolution.
Yes.
I wasn’t thinking of weird people, but of someone, perhaps with no connection to Catholicism, who might want to confess his sins to another person. The Bible, after all, says “Confess your sins to one another,” and that can be understood in a variety of different ways.
“The priest, of course, could not give him absolution.”
No, but the Jewish guy at least got someone to listen to his problems for a few minutes without having to pay a therapist’s bill!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.