This statement appears to evade the fact that the Supreme Bishop has already (at least theoretically) ‘protected’ the laity by his determination.
The immediate protection of the laity is the responsibility of the diocesan bishop, not the pope. His protection is less immediate, because he is not on the scene.
Further, it would not seem impossible to have some committee in Rome that could serve as a kind of Tribunal for settling potential issues or disputes.
That is exactly how it works. The Sacred Congregation for Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life settle all issues and disputes between religious and societies and the Church. The Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, does the same for the deacons and priests and the Prelate does the same for the prelature. The difference is that the Prelate has direct authority over the prelature and he is not on a committee, but he works directly with the Holy See.
Moreover, I don’t think Bp. Fellay so unreasonable as to ask for a blank cheque, as it were; I imagine he will request faculties for everything as it presently exists, and submit to seeking permissions for changes (e.g. transfering a priest from one diocese to another) or additions (adding a newly ordained priest to a diocese) either at the local diocesan level or, preferably (from his point of view), from Rome or some agency of the Vatican.
It’s actually the other way around. The Prelate can assign his men anywhere in the prelature. He does not need the bishop’s permission to assign or transfer. Once he assigns, the priest must get faculties from the local bishop. That’s the current law.
I disagree. It would seem most imprudent - let alone problematic - to grant such faculties, but as the source of all jurisdiction and authority in the Church, the Holy See could, at least theoretically, grant them.
You can’t have universal faculties, because there is no such thing as universal diocese. The only person who has universal faculties is the pope, because he is an Ordinary in every diocese. If you read Canon Law, the term it uses is not diocese, it’s “Local Church.” That term is deliberately used to emphasize the autonomy of each bishop and his diocese.
I object. The Holy See is in effect is a universal diocese. It is the link that binds us all.
The Holy See is not a diocese. It is the central government of the Church. Try telling Eastern Catholics that the Vatican is their mother diocese and you’ll trigger another schism in the East. Don’t even go there.
This seems rather strange. Everyone knows that there is nothing wanting for validity except the faculties.
That’s why I said. If something is invalid, whether it’s legal or not is the least of your problems. First you have to make it valid, then you determine if you’re doing it according to the law.
Also a manifestly strange formulation. Invalid baptisms, for example, are a great concern even though they are invalid and most likely illegal (illicit).
Anything that is invalid, is illegal by default.
Yes and this would be an example of universal faculties being granted for the sake (of the salvation) of souls.
The law does not work that way. The Church supplies only when there is no canonical impediment. If the priest is suspended, there is a canonical impediment. The suspension is laid aside only in the danger of death.
A priest traveling from NY to China via San Francisco, is approached in San Francisco airport by someone who wants to go to confession, the Church provides faculties. Why? First, the priest does not have faculties to hear confessions in San Francisco. Second, the priest is in good standing with the Church. Third, the person does not know that the priest does not have faculties. In the case of the SSPX, the second condition is not met.
But if he fails in his obligation, then I imagine the sin is his and the Church would supply the necessary faculties; again, another instance of the Church granting universal faculties.
No. It does not work that way. That would be like saying that the Church supplies when an impostor hears a confession. The penitent leaves with his sins unabsolved and the priest has done something illegal. The Church has always refused to grant faculties in such cases, because there is no need. The penitent is not in danger of death. The priest can help by pointing the penitent to a priest who has faculties. The problem with the SSPX has been that they have serious questions about whether or not this law actually applies to them. They are not acting out of malice. There is a real disagreement about the law.
Okay, so the precedents have been set and we can safely agree that the Church can provide faculties for the salvation of souls and that the rule governing faculties is chiefly, again, the salvation of souls.
Not quite. The primary mission of the Church is to save souls. The rule that governs faculties includes the salvation of the priest’s soul. The Church will not supply faculties to a priest who knowingly defies the law. She would be aiding him.
I understand this. I am not arguing against the norm but for the possibility of an exception to it, perhaps granted temporarily and conditionally.
I said before that the Holy Father can change the law or grant an indult, etc. We can only speak using the law as it is right now. We can’t assume to know if the law will be the same next month.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
(I’m sorry, I couldn’t help it. The irony was too good to ignore).
