I don't know if this was already brought up. If it was, please just link to the post.

Q.1. If the Holy Father gave SSPX ordinary jurisdiction, wouldn't that mean that A.) they are not heretics, and B.) they are not schismatic?

The reason I ask is because if they were schismatic or heretics and were granted jurisdiction, then the SSPX priests would possibly lead the flock astray with whatever schismatic mentality or heretical ideas, whom they are directing and guiding in the confessional. I am just thinking this act of granting ordinary jurisdiction is just another proof against those who might claim they are heretics or schismatic.

Q2. Is it true that if they are given ordinary jurisdiction, all censures (including suspension) must have been suspended?

The reason I ask is that as far as I know, suspension means they cannot exercise any ministry, including the Sacraments. So if they were given ordinary jurisdiction for this year, that implies that any suspensions themselves were suspended, so that they could legitimately minister the Sacraments?

Q3. How would you assess the morality of attending their Masses under such circumstances?

1. The SSPX have never been accused of heresy

2. The possibility that they might be in schism was resolved in 2007 when Pope Benedict lifted the 1988 decrees of excommunication against the society

I don't think the situation regarding their canonical status has changed. They were given jurisdiction to hear confessions, but that is all. So their masses are still illicit and their weddings are invalid.

1) What do you mean by "ordinary jurisdiction"? Pope Francis gave them faculties to hear confessions, but he gave that directly, not via their Ordinary, because they don't have an Ordinary because of their irregular status.

2) Canon Law already contains an exception wherein any priest at all, even a completely laicized one, and even if there's a priest in good standing present, can hear the confession and grant absolution to a dying person. That wouldn't un-laicize the priest, and it wouldn't un-suspend the SSPX priests (if they are suspended, about which I don't know enough to comment).

3) As I think you know, attending SSPX Masses has been permissible for many years already as long as it is not done in a spirit of disobedience.

Really? I didn't know that. I guess it has to be a priest or deacon "in good standing" who witnesses a marriage?

Really. Can. 1108 §1 Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest or of the priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the presence of two witnesses, assists, in accordance however with the rules set out in the following canons, and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112 §1, 1116 and 1127 §§2 - 3.

But the word is coming down from Rome that the jurisdiction to hear confessions is going to be made permanent, or perhaps it would be better to say 'indefinite', it's not going to expire at the end of this jubilee year. And permission was granted to the faithful to attend SSPX Masses during the last years of the reign of John Paul II.

As far as I can tell, the "word coming down" is based on a report on a French blog that's being spread around the Internet. It wouldn't surprise me if the Holy Father does it (nor would it upset me), but it wouldn't surprise if nothing ever comes of it.

Also, I would not say that "permission was granted to the faithful." Rather, the head of Ecclesia Dei wrote a letter in reply to a private question asking if it was acceptable to attend SSPX Masses, and he said that it was as long as the motive was correct. So it wasn't that he was giving permission--he was making an observation about the way things already were.

More accurately, the source is a blog which has several sources within in the Vatican and which often prints Vatican rumors and they usually turn out to be true. It's not just a random blog.

I did not know that. I was going periodically after a friend of mine showed me that letter by Fr. Perl to Una Voce. About a year later, I think around 2011 or 2012, I was listening to a talk by Fr. Pfeifer, former SSPX (I was trying to figure out what was going on when some of the priests were being dismissed from the SSPX during that rough time they had a few years back), but anyway, he mentioned that another letter came out from Rome which was saying that the faithful couldn't go, and that this new letter opposed what Monseigneur Perl wrote to Una Voce. As soon as I heard that from Fr. Pfeifer, I just stopped going all-together. However, I never verified that this was true or whatever letter or document he was referring to. I just took his word for it. Furthermore, I might have misunderstood him.

Anyway, has anyone here heard or seen any official letter or document online from Rome that trumped Fr. Perl's letter to Una Voce (I don't know if there was more than one, but it was the letter saying we could attend and fulfill our obligation, so as long as we sought to be cautious not to imbibe any schismatic mentality)? Again, perhaps I misunderstood Fr. Pfeifer's talk he gave back in 2011 or 2012.

So what Pope Francis gave, could not be said to be 'ordinary jurisdiction"? I also reread the letter or exhortation by Pope Francis, and he definitely did not use the words ordinary jurisdiction.

I think doom's statement should be stronger with the caveat. My understanding is that the Church does not envision people going regularly, but only occasionally when no other good option is available, and THEN only if one resists the temptation to be rebellious. So, I think before we say you can go as long as you do not imbibe the spirit of disobedience, it needs to be pointed out that first there has to exist the situation that there are no other options, and you don't go frequently.

FJ

Yeah, well, what does that mean? Unfortunately, a lot of people live in areas where literally the only reverent Mass offered according to the rubrics is the one at the SSPX parish. At any non-SSPX parish, you're going to have liturgical dancing, blasphemous displays, heretical homilies etc. And this situation may exist for years or even decades. So if you're talking about an 'emergency situation', it's an 'emergency situation' that may well be permanent. You could move into an area as a teenager, and by the time you're reaching retirement age the SSPX Mass is the only non-blasphemous one in a 50 miles radius.


Look, I am of the opinion that until their status is regularized, Catholics should avoid SSPX chapels, but I, and obviously those within the Vatican whose job it is to decide such things, am sympathetic to people who can't find a good Mass anywhere EXCEPT an SSPX chapel.

I think I have a fundamental question. If they recognize Francis to be the Successor of St Peter, they are not in schism. Are they heretics? If so, why are they not excommunicated? If they do believe in the true faith and acknowledge Papal authority, what makes them different from us, the "normal" people?

We are in agreement. I just think it needed to be stated a bit clearer. SSPX is not an option for those that do have viable alternatives.

FJ

I have heard rumor of another letter that contradicts what Msgr. Perl wrote in 2003, but I've not seen it. Admittedly I haven't looked that hard, but I think someone referencing such a letter has a duty to cite it and in context.

I don't think one's reasoning for attending an SSPX Mass has to rise to the standard of "I don't have any viable alternatives."

Jurisdiction. They acknowledge papal authority but run their own organization independently. Acknowledging authority and obedience apparently can be separated.

I don't think he even used the word "faculties." He simply said that those who approach SSPX priests for confession during the Year of Mercy are validly absolved. Now of course that means "faculties" but he didn't actually use that word.

It's complicated. The Holy See resolutely declines to use the word "schismatic" with reference to the SSPX, but their situation is highly irregular. You don't have to have high level meetings with the Holy See if everything is going well.