F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Marriage is too as when the Society of St John Vinney in Campos Brazil reconciled with the Church their marriages were made valid by radical sanation.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
Please do not say this, because this is not the case. The Church holds that the priests of the Society cannot validly absolve or witness marriages and that Ecclesia Supplet does not apply here, because the faithful do have priests who are in good standing with the Church who can provide absolution and who can witness their marriages.
The Church supplies only when there is no other resource. There is no reason why a Catholic cannot go to confession to any priest in his diocese or at a religious house. Nor is there a valid reason why a Catholic cannot be married by a deacon or priest at any parish in the diocese.
Not having anywhere to go would apply if there were no other person. A good example would be in danger of death. You don’t assume that the person will live long enough for a priest to arrive, when there is a validly ordained priest available, even if he is suspended.
This is the crux of the matter. The priests of the Society are suspended. Suspended priests cannot absolve or wtiness marriages.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
Speramus
Guest
It is surprising that a marriage in front of of an SSPX priest is considered invalid on the basis of the priest lacking faculties, when the hypothetical RO priest and Lutheran minister would also lack faculties from the local Catholic bishop.
Wouldn’t an SSPX marriage have everything needed for a valid sacrament? What would be lacking: form, matter, minister, intention, or something else? (#1623 of the Catechism says that the ministers of the sacrament of Marriage are the bride and groom “according to the Latin tradition”).
J
JReducation
Guest
What is missing is the permission of the Church. In the case of an Orthodox priest, he has the permission of the Church. Do not forget that the Orthodox Metropolitans and Patriarchs have Apostolic Succession, are legally ordained, are not subject to Canon Law, are not suspended nor excommunicated. The excommunications between East and West were lifted. The excommunications were mutual, but they no longer exist. Both sides agree that their deacons, priests and bishops are valid and licit. The case withe the clergy of the SSPX is the licaity. They are valid, but they are not licit (legal). Therefore, they cannot represent the Church, in which case, they cannot bless a marriage in the name of the Church.
An Orthodox priest blesses the marriage in the name of the Church, because he is authorized to do so by his Ordinary, not of his own accord. A Protestant does not bless a marriage in the name of the Church, because he does not belong to the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.
You get into trouble when you attempt to bless something in the name of the Church without the Church’s permission to do act in her name. That’s over simplifying a rather complex canonical issue, but that’s the jist of it. This is where Radical Sanation enters into the picture. It means that the Church heals the damage done to the couple and to the marriage.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
scimitar60
Guest
Soon enough we shall have the Traditional mass back, soon enough. The new mass is just modernised for our benefit because according to most people the Traditional mass is simply ‘It’s too hard for our lifestyle’. Hardly. In my opinion both types should be VALID and we should have the ability to go to which one we want, without fearing some sort of invalid sacrament or something.
A
At_Trent
Guest
We do have the TLM back. Pope BXVI freed it of indult. Any priest competent to pray it can do so without his Bishop’s permission.
J
JReducation
Guest
Wait a minute. We do have the EF back and we do have a choice. The EF is valid and licit when celebrated by any priest who is not suspended. When celebrated by a suspended priest it is still valid, but illegal. I’m a little confused why you say that we will “soon” have it back.
The only thing that Pope Benedict has said is that it is to remain the Extraordinary Form, meaning that it is not to become the usual and customary mass for the Roman Church. The other thing that goes along with this is that religious orders are not bound to celebrate it unless they have the permission of the Major Superior. The Major Superior can only grant that permission if the law of the order allows him to do so. In some religious communities, the constitution does not give the superior the authority to grant the permission. This is by design of the General Chapter of the religious community, which limits how much power a superior may have. These laws are approved by the Holy See. Some communities do grant the superiors authority to grant the permission. That makes it even easier, because you don’t have to go to Rome to ask. You just ask the superior.
But if you have a validly ordained priest, with permission to celebrate the mass, then there is no problem. Every diocesan priest can celebrate it without asking for permission, as long as they do not make it the only mass that they’ll celebrate. If they do that, then it’s not extraordinary.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
maurin
Guest
It most certainly IS true, and precisely for the qualifiers I mentioned. So please do not insult the tens of thousands of us who validly receive the Sacraments from the Priests of the SSPX through the supplied jurisdiction of the Church. We are Catholics. We know we are receiving nothing less from our Priests.Please do not say this, because this is not the case.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Regardless of anything else others might lead erroneously to believe.
Fraternally, maurin
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m sorry, but that is not what the law says. The law says that the Church supplies if you have no other priest. You yourself said that you had no place to go, which is not true. You can go to confession to any priest in your diocese or to any priest at any religious house where the superior grants faculties. Therefore, there is no need to go to confession to a priest in the Society. The Church only supplies when there is a need.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
R
rben20
Guest
Br. JR,I’m sorry, but that is not what the law says. The law says that the Church supplies if you have no other priest. You yourself said that you had no place to go, which is not true. You can go to confession to any priest in your diocese or to any priest at any religious house where the superior grants faculties. Therefore, there is no need to go to confession to a priest in the Society. The Church only supplies when there is a need.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Maurin does not accept that SSPX priests do not have faculties. He will be rude about it and ignore you.
S
Speramus
Guest
Aren’t protestant weddings still considered sacramental by us, even in cases where they themselves don’t consider marriage a sacrament?
I can see how lack of permission could make a marriage illicit, but I have trouble seeing how it makes a marriage invalid. What is necessary for a valid sacrament?
P
pnewton
Guest
It is not an insult is an opinion expressed by every non-traditionalist canon lawyer I have ever read, to wit, that supplied jurisdiction does not exist when a person is fully aware of the irregular status of the priest and knows the priest does not have faculties for that Sacrament. Supplied jurisdiction is aimed at unintentionally receiving confession from a priest that does not have faculties, not deliberating shunning proper authority.
This really should not be an issue. There is no reason anyone who attends an SSPX Mass would be denied confession through a regular parish priest.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m always very cautious in speaking about Protestant weddings, because I don’t know all of the ins and outs of how the Protestants baptize. I know that some have invalid baptisms. To receive a sacrament you must be baptized.
Assuming that two persons of the same faith are baptized, then there is both validity and sacrament.
If only one person is validly baptized, there may still be validity, if the non-baptized agrees to the marriage requirements: children etc.
If neither are validly baptized, there is no sacrament, but the marriage is valid. That’s called a natural marriage.
There are cases of natural marriage even when the parties are baptized, such as two persons marrying outside of their faith, let’s say a Methodist and a Lutheran marrying in a non-denominational church. I’m assuming here that Methodists have valid baptism. I don’t know that. I’m not very familiar with the baptismal rituals of the smaller Protestant communities. I know that the Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians and Baptists have valid Baptism. I just don’t know about all 500 Protestant ecclesial communities.
I wish I could be more helpful.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I’ll offer an example in support of Pnewton’s point. In my community the Vicar suspended one of the ordained brothers for disobedience. Once suspended, he remained a member of the order. That cannot be taken away from him. He also remains an ordained priest. In effect, he remains both a brother and a priest. However, the Church does not supply him with faculties simply because he wishes to hear confessions. He has no canonical status. The Church provides out of mercy for the penitent, not for the confessor.
If we agree that the Church provides to the priest of the Society, then we would have to agree that the Church also provides for a Franciscan who disobeyed a direct order from his superior, under the vow of obedience.
However, if we keep finding exceptions to the rule of suspension and saying that the Church provides, then suspension is meaningless. Where do you draw the line?
The Church draws the line by saying that it provides faculties for cases when the person does not know or when even if the person knows, there is no other resource. If Father X has been laicized for child sexual abuse and he comes across an auto accident on the road, he can validly and legally hear the confession and grant absolution. Why? It’s not out of mercy for Fr. X. It’s out of mercy for the penitent who needs a priest and Fr. X, now Mr. X, happens to be the one on the scene.
The Church supplies is a law of mercy for the good of the penitent, not the priest. When the penitent’s welfare is not at stake, there is no need for the Church to supply.
By the way, the individual brother in question did eventually obey and his faculties were restored. This has been the rule since I’ve been in religious life . . . that’s a very long time. That story had a happy ending. I hope this one does too.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
F
floresco
Guest
Your understanding is wrong. The ability to validly consecrate the Eucharist is not dependent on being in full communion with Rome.
Personally, I try to follow the lead of the Pope in dealing with this issue. He does not scold and berate the people associated with the SSPX. He treats their concerns with sympathy and understanding.
M
maurin
Guest
On the contrary, rben. maurin accepts that the Priests of the Society do not possess faculties from the present and past 3 Pontiffs of the Church. However, maurin is not as rude as some obviously are, nor as arrogant to publicly presume to kinow the mind of another.
maurin also understands the distinction between what the Church has always taught and has faithfully received from the Apostles as received from Christ Himself, and the contradictions to that Faith which have arisen and have been allowed to be disseminated from the pulpits of thousands of Churches around the world, with impunity, and sometimes even with the support of or silence of the Shepherds of so many Dioceses. The Eternal Church is much larger than any particular Papacy.
Tens of thousands of us who have come to understand this have no other place to turn, and know that jurisdiction is supplied by that same Eternal Church, which of course is much larger than the magisteriums of 4 Papacies.
M
maurin
Guest
It most certainly is an issue when it is difficult to find an orthodox confessor. Supplied jurisdiction stands. For precisely the reasons mentioned above and on other threads. Priests who do not preach Catholic doctrine and dogma, those who even preach in contradeiction of them–can one reasonably expect to receive sound advice from them in the Confessional? My direct experience says otherwise.
Yours may not. You are fortunate.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
We can certainly continue to have the same battle of lay canon lawyers argue this ad nauseam. The number of canon lawyers who agree or disagree with the application of supplied jurisdiction to the SSPX does not settle the matter one way or another. The Popes have been relatively silent on the matter, unlike Leo XIII who formally ruled on Anglican orders. They have gone only so far as to say that the SSPX exercises no canonical mission in the church, a statement of juridical fact. From that statement, the laity (and some in the episcopacy), have come up with a cross reference of sacraments with various personal determinations on sacramental licitities and validities based on their own interpretation of canon law. As in secular courts, the opinions of the attorney and/or the gallery mean nothing until adjudicated by the judge. This have NEVER been done in an ecclesial court to my knowledge. Those who assist at an SSPX chapel who have read the case for and against Supplied Jurisdiction as it applies to the SSPX and who believe that it applies to them will continue to validly receive the sacraments. IMHO, the Pope has chosen not to rule on this matter precisely because Supplied Jurisdiction does apply and he has not found the need to declare publicly or privately otherwise, having of course ample opportunity to do so.
In the forumsphere and blogosphere, we have created terms like inside/outside the church and full/partial communion which have no definition or measure juridically. There is no test for percentages of communion with the church (full/partial/half full/slightly below full). If one were to create such a measure based on acceptance and agreement by each Catholic on each dogmatic pronunciation of the church, we would most like find the majority of Catholics, including priests and bishops, not in full communion with the church. One must accept the dogmatic declarations of the Catholic Church and must accept, in charity, the other non-ex-cathedra papal and non-dogmatic conciliar teachings of the church that do not conflict with the previous teachings of the church. In the case of the Second Vatican Council, which proclaimed no new dogma by its own admission, one is required to accept its teachings in so far as they do not conflict with previous teachings. In the cases where they do in fact appear to conflict, or at least the accepted or popular interpretation appears to conflict with previously held teachings, there is an obligation to challenge the popular or accepted interpretation where the documents were vague enough to allow for multiple interpretations. That is what is happening today in the doctrinal discussions.
A
At_Trent
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
So you have said. And for someone who wil base their reception of sacramental grace on what is posted by us here, it may be of value. However, I would point out that the theological opinions of the priest do not affect the Sacrament. Also, it is possible to receive reconcilliation without seeking spiritual directorship. The two are not the same.
I would hope that no one would roll the dice with their eternal soul based on what either you or I think. If there was even a single chance that I, and the majority of others on this topic, were right, I would think prudence would call for confession to a priest with faculties from the bishop. No, guiseppe, numbers do not decide right or wrong, but they might direct one’s prudent course of action.
- Status