http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/01/quaeritur-confession-to-an-sspx-priest-a-sin/

Fr. Z says....

"From a reader:

While doing research I came across something that said that one of the faithful who knowingly receives a Sacrament from a priest without faculties commits a sin. I have always attended SSPX chapels and gone to confession there. But after what I read, I haven’t known what to do. I haven’t gone to Confession in months. I’m also afraid of having a disagreement with my parents. My Dad has very strong opinions about anything not connected with the SSPX.

The Church’s law says clearly that if a priest lacks the faculties from proper authority to receive sacramental confessions, and therefore absolve sins, then the absolution is invalid.  The priest must have faculties from the Church to absolve validly.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law says that:

Can. 966 §1 For the valid absolution of sins, it is required that, in addition to the power of order, the minister has the faculty to exercise that power in respect of the faithful to whom he gives absolution.
§2 A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself, or by a concession issued by the competent authority in accordance with can. 969.

From this we see that priests must have permission of the Church to absolve sins.  The Church, by the way, gets to determine how the sacraments are administered.  The SSPX does not get to decide how sacraments are administered.

Usually it is a diocesan bishop or major superior of a religious order that give these faculties to a priest in a stable way.  In danger of death of a person the Church’s law says that, in that circuмstance, even a “laicized” priest has faculties.  This is because the salvation of the soul of the dying person is paramount.

We don’t know what God does for the soul of a person who, in good will and in ignorance, goes to confess to a priest who  lacks faculties.  We can’t judge that.  God will do as it pleases Him to do.

Also, we have to consider culpable and inculpable ignorance.  Catholics ought to inform themselves about their Faith.  To what extent is a matter for debate.  But once you walk through the door of exploring your Faith even to the point of learning about the law and faculties that priests have, I think you are on the hook.  You don’t have to wonder ever about priests at the local parish or official chapel established by the local diocese.  Even Father “Just call me ‘Bob’” has faculties, even though he is a heretic.

That said, if a person has been informed that SSPX priests do not have faculties to receive sacramental confessions, and goes to them anyway, a huge problem is introduced.  Those priests don’t – in normal circuмstances – have faculties.  Period.  Some people say they have “emergency powers”.  The Church does not agree.  They don’t have faculties.

It seems to me that if a person knows that the priest does NOT have faculties, and he goes to him anyway, then he knows that he is simulating a sacrament.  That would be a sin.

Simulating a sacrament can bring ecclesiastical penalties, by the way (can. 1379).

If there are doubts, true doubts, that is another matter.  But the prudent person would find an actual confessor, a priest who without doubt has faculties.  Go to the local parish, a real parish of the diocese, and you don’t have to doubt, even if the priest is a complete jerk.

And please understand that in writing this I am not saying that the SSPX priests are bad men.  Those whom I have met have seemed to be prayerful men who want to be good priests.  But they don’t have faculties.  I long for them to be reconciled with the Church so that we can all benefit from their service and example and zeal.

This is serious business, friends.  You never want to doubt that your sins are absolved.  Don’t fool around with this.

The value of a valid absolution that you don’t have to doubt by far outweighs the irritation that some dopey priest inflicts by saying that X isn’t a sin, etc.

Combox moderation is switched on.

I will be extremely restrictive in what I release to public view."

........It seems to me that if a person knows that the priest does NOT have faculties, and he goes to him anyway, then he knows that he is simulating a sacrament.  That would be a sin..........

I will be extremely restrictive in what I release to public view."

Modernists like Fr Z are so "see through", as transparent as a sheet of glass.

As if anyone can say with certainty that the NO priests who do have facilities are not simulating a sacrament.

As long as there is a Novus Ordo, there is a crisis.......someone should clue him on on that.

 

I was keeping half an eye on Michael Voris, waiting for him to tip his hand which side he was on..........I get his emails and occasionally will watch one of his videos but I remain leery of anyone who leaves me wondering, as MV does - more by what he never says than by what he does say, which is generally the truth about what is going on.

Then I watched his video where he is having a retreat on a cruise ship with Fr. Z.

My suspicions were correct, I wonder no more.

 
 

Fr. Z flippantly responded that the Church is for sinners.

This is true but is a diversionary tactic.

Does Fr. Z think the Church should encourage or even teach sin?  The commenter mentioned a whole slew or errors taught by priests and even bishops.

Fr. Z also said that even though Fr. "just call me bob" may be a heretic he has faculties.  It's one thing for a priest to be in a state of mortal sin but doesn't a heretic place himself outside the church?  

I could do a line by line comment on all of this.  And so could just about everyone here too.  

Fr. Z is the kind of guy to jump the shark...

As painful as it is for many people to hear, Father Z is 100% consistent.

Yes, he is 100% consistent with the rest of the NOers out there who have banged the same "irregular" drum for the last 50 years, but that's all.

When I posted at FE,  it was plain that most posters there would agree with Fr. Z.
Most NOer posters at FE considered themselves as "Conservatives", hearing only Fr. Z's orthodoxy and pretend that his heresy is non-existent, same as they do with pretty much all things NO.  To paraphrase Fr. W.: Morally --and practically--his heresy negates his Catholic utterances, as the truth on a liar's lips is untrustworthy.  

The only way for Fr. Z and other modernists to be correct, they must first argue away or flat out reject and deny nearly all the other doctrines of the faith in order to justify their position that the SSPX is sinful because they are in an irregular situation.
The conservatives, in order to hold this belief, need to go out of their way to maintain a blind eye, deaf ear and mute tongue and favor or at least endure all the abominations of the conciliar church - except, of course when the music at the NO service is too secular or some other such overt act of impiety during their service happens - then the conservatives can agree how they would like to see those "abuses" done away with.

For the most part, it all goes back to the "conservatives" cannot be communicated with because of their false obedience to the pope. Some might say obedience to a false pope. Which ever the case, it is their blind obedience to error that necessarily dictates their faulty reasoning in this matter.

Suffice to say that if 50 years ago, it were left up to Fr. Z. and those who believe as he believes to do what had to be done in order keep the faith for themselves and future generations - there would only be the NO. The True faith and sacraments would be less than a memory by now. Whoever seeks the truth, needs to consider this truth.

I wonder if the SSPX will continue to advertise reading his blog on their website?  :tinfoil:

When did they do this?  I don't read their site regularly so have never seen that.

I'd never heard of Fr. Z until I saw this thread.  Who is he?  Where is he?

Marsha