UPDATE: The Purpose of the Law

UPDATE: According to Rorate Caeli, the letter from PCED is discussing a chapel not affiliated with the SSPX, which would explain the PCED's position today vis-a-vis the previous position.  It would appear that this is a case that is distinguishable from the prior PCED ruling - that is, as we stand today, the SSPX Masses do indeed fulfill the Sunday obligation according to the PCED's opinion.  Anyway... I will leave my original post because I think it is still pertinent and, quite frankly, it took me a bit of time to write it, so I do not want to delete it!

If you keep up with news on Traditionalist Catholic blogs, you are probably aware that a private letter from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to a particular person was released publicly (not by PCED) today.  One possible reading of that letter is that the faithful do not fulfill their Sunday Mass obligation by assisting at Masses of the Fraternity of St. Pius X.  If today's letter says that, it is a reversal of an earlier letter from the PCED that said precisely the opposite.

At any rate, in addition to all the other comments one could make about that, I would like to focus on the logical conundrum into which today's letter leads (which I think is pretty funny, by the way).  Bear with me while I throw down some logic...

1. Under Canon Law § 1247, the faithful may fulfill their Sunday Mass obligation "by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic Rite...."
2. The PCED has determined the faithful do not meet their Sunday Mass obligation by assisting at an SSPX Mass.
3. The PCED has therefore determined the SSPX do not celebrate the Mass according to a Catholic Rite.
4. Therefore, the SSPX is not Catholic. 

1. Normally, in order for absolution to be valid during the Sacrament of Penance, the absolving priest must have jurisdiction from the local bishop.
2. However, under Canon Law § 844.2, the faithful may receive the Sacraments, including the Sacrament of Penance, from a non-Catholic minister whose Sacraments are valid (that is, a schismatic). 
3. Therefore, schismatic priests require no jurisdiction from the local bishop to validly absolve. 

1. The SSPX has valid Sacraments, but according to the PCED are not Catholic.  Therefore, they are schismatic.
2. Since the SSPX priests are schismatic, they need not have jurisdiction from the local bishop to validly absolve.
3. Therefore, confession to an SSPX priest is valid and the priest validly absolves.

Of course, I am saying this somewhat in jest to point out that the law loses meaning when the ultimate purpose is forgotten.  In this case, the purpose of the law is the salvation of souls.  Does it not behoove the PCED to say that SSPX Masses fulfill the obligation because then more people are meeting their obligation and avoiding sin?  Does it not make sense for SSPX priests to validly absolve so that more people have their sins forgiven?

Anyway, some pointed out that the PCED is not even the proper authority to make determinations about the intricacs of Canon Law.  That right belongs to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.  Frankly, I have not looked deeply into the issue and I do not really care to do so. 

One thing is certain: the Holy Father is the earthly lawgiver, so he has the final say on this and every other Canon Law issue.  He has said nothing either way.  Since the law is construed for the benefit of souls... well, I think the SSPX Masses meet the obligation.  But, I am not going to bet my eternal salvation on my logic skills!

Let us pray that His Holiness Benedict XVI will step in to clarify whether the faithful fulfill their Sunday Mass obligation by assisting at SSPX Masses.