As a canonist involved within the Traditionalist Movement, I am often asked whether or not a Catholic in good standing with the Church can lawfully approach a priest or bishop of the SSPX for sacraments.  Most often, I am posed this question in reference to Can. 844 §2 which states as follows:

Can. 844 §2 - Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

One notices that the word "Church" in the above canon is capitalized.  The canon does not say that Catholics may receive the aforementioned sacraments from "non-Catholic ministers in whose *churches* these sacraments are valid."  In interpreting this canon, it is important that we keep in mind the following legal norms outlined in the First Book of the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 16 §1  Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.

This means that the canons contained within the code are legitimately interpreted by the Holy Father (and his successors) who legislated the Code, as well as those whom he has delegated to interpret the Code.  Secondly, we must keep in mind the following:

Can. 17  Ecclesiastical laws are to be understood according to the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context.  If the meaning remains doubtful or obscure, there must be recourse to parallel places, if  there be any, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

This means that the canons must be understood according to both the text and the context in which they find themselves.  In cases of doubt, one should seek references elsewhere as to what was the purpose of the law, and the mind of the legislator in passing the law.  In the case of the present Code, the legislator is the Holy Father.

Now if we apply these general norms to Can. 844 §2, we see that the intention of the legislator, within the context of the canon, is to permit Catholics under certain circumstance to receive the the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers of Churches in which the sacraments are valid.  This is not a permission to receive the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches the sacraments are valid.   The difference being that the sacraments must be valid owing to the denominational Church to which the non-Catholic minister belongs, and not merely from the validity of the minister's ordination.  For example, one could not receive the sacraments from a priest validly ordained within the Catholic Church who later defected from the Catholic Faith and now ministers within the Episcopalian ecclesial communion.  Nor could one approach a validly-ordained non-Catholic minister who ministers the sacraments independently of the jurisdiction of a Church in which these sacraments are valid.

With this in mind, we must look at parallel laws to see what the legislator means by the term "Church" when granting permission under Can. 844 §2 to receive the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches they are valid.  The most important document that clarifies the mind and intention of the legislator is the Pontifical Commission for the Promotion of Christian Unity's "1993 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Eceumenism." (aka Eceumenical Directory).  Within the Eceumenical Directory, we find parallel laws contained within the following four norms which clarify the intention of the legislator with regards to Can. 844 §2:

123.  Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for any Catholic for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick from a minister of an Eastern Church.

As we can see from the above norm, Catholics may enjoy the full benefit of Can. 844 §2 when approaching a minister of a non-Catholic Eastern Church in which the sacraments are valid, in order to receive the sacraments.

However, this norm does not apply when approaching the minister of a non-Catholic Western Church in which the sacraments are valid.  Rather, this situation is covered under norm 132 of the Eceumenical Directory which are much stricter.  

This norm states as follows:

132.  On the basis of the Catholic doctrine concerning the sacraments and their validity, a Catholic who finds himself or herself in the circumstances mentioned above (nn. 130 and 131) may ask for these sacraments only from a minister in whose Church these sacraments are valid or from one who is known to be validly ordained according to the Catholic teaching on ordination.

Thus, before a Catholic may legally approach a non-Catholic minister within a Western Church in which the sacraments are valid, he must meet the further requirements of certain circumstances defined in nn. 130 and 131 of the Eceumenical Directory.  These circumstances are danger of death or permission of the local ordinary in accordance with local or regional legislation (n. 130), and/or the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or the Catholic Church (n. 131).  Because the norm specifies Church in the universal sense, and not Church *sui iuris* (i.e., Latin Catholic Church, Ukrainian Catholic Church, Melkite Catholic Church) this norm cannot be interpreted in the sense that the Catholic is unable to approach a Catholic priest of his own liturgical rite.

With regards to the SSPX, this prohibition has been confirmed first by the Pontifical Commission ECCLESIA DEI in protocol N. 117/95 as follows:

2. The Masses [the SSPX] celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2).   The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

Hence, we see that the Ecclesia Dei Commission, to whom has been delegated the power of authentic interpretation of Can. 844 §2 in this instance, does not consider the lack of opportunity to assist at a Tridentine Mass sufficient cause to receive the sacraments from a Lefebvrite cleric.  Thus in light of Canons. 16-17, as well as the Norms 130-132 of the Eceumenical Directory, one cannot invoke Can. 844 §2 in order to receive the sacraments from a Lefebvrite priest simply because a Tridentine Mass is lacking.

Furthermore, as the SSPX claim no jurisdiction, the Catholic Church is not certain at the present whether the SSPX constitutes a Church like the Eastern Orthodox or the Polish National Catholic Church, or whether the SSPX is simply a loose federation of acephalous (independent) priests and episcopal vagantes (wandering bishops) like the Old Catholic Movement in North America.  Thus where to classify the SSPX schism at the moment represents an internal dilemna for the Church, as noted by the Pontifical Commission for the Propagation of Christian Unity in Protocol Number 2336/94 as follows:

Regarding your inquiry, I would point out at once that the Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of Saint 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.

As well as the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota in the following nullity of marriage case in which a couple attempted to marry before an SSPX priest:

We are dealing with a priest belonging in virtue of ordination to the Society of St. Pius X, which lacked the necessary canonical legitimacy in the Church at the time of the celebration of the marriage... he was like an acephalous or transient or "freelance" priest, and consequently, did not seek from anyone the faculty to assist at the marriage.  [*coram* Antoni STANKIEWICZ, 15 December 1992, trans in Studia Canonica, Vol. 29/2 (1995).]

Hence, until the Catholic Church can resolve this internal dilemna upon how to properly classify the SSPX schism, the Holy See has prudently chosen not to classify the SSPX as a Church.  Therefore, one cannot invoke Can. 844 §2 or the conditions of the Eceumenical Directory in order to receive the sacraments from SSPX ministers -- as in accordance with the mind of the legislator, it is not certain that the SSPX constitute a Church.  Hence as the law must be understood according to the interpretation of the legislator, and as the interpretation of the legislator is not favourable to Catholics receiving the sacraments from Lefebvrite non-Catholic ministers except in danger of death or where one is physically or morally impeded from approaching a Catholic minister of any liturgical rite, Catholics are not legally permitted to receive the sacraments from the SSPX.

(Copyright 1999 Peter J. Vere)