Ok, most people would agree with you on that.
You’re in disagreement with the Pope and the Church on that. The Church recognizes that they have valid priests in apostolic succession and celebrate valid Masses. Rome has stated that you can fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending.
It may not be specific in the new code of canon law, but one would need a dispensation to join a religious order, man or women, if they were illegitamate. It goes beyond scandal, if that is what you are citing for a reason why the need for a dispensation. The sacrament of marriage has graces passed on to children which would not be for kids of unmarried parents which are very important. A dispensation is neccessary. Though looked at flippently today by most sadly.
Where does the CCC say this?
Which graces?
It’s not a fact, it’s untrue. They admit on their own site that they don’t have access to dispensations reserved to the Pope. Is it ok for people to make false accusations against the SSPX just because they don’t like them?** Originally Posted by Just Lurking View Post
The SSPX has their St. Charles Borromeo Canonical Commission to supply any dispensations that canon law reserves to the pope, for whichever canon law they choose to apply on a particular matter.
[Struggingalong wrote:} So the Pope has to give the dispensation so how can their commission supply what is reserved for the Pope?**
**By this very fact, SSPX is admitting it’s functioning OUT OF COMMUNION with the Pope.
Sad, sad, sad.
It means not in full communion. I also wonder why the CC would tell people NOT to attend their places of worship?
Actually, the CC admits that there are circumstances in which it is acceptable to attend the SSPX. Reading the actual comments of Ecclesia Dei, Cardinal Hoyos, etc., will show this (rather than just reading what some say about them on these forums.)
If you are saying that the SSPX is not Catholic, then you are the one that disagrees with the Pope, the Church, and the rules of this forum.
I am saying, that the CCC says, that one must submit to the Vicar of Christ, the pope- in matters of faith and morals!
Thanks for the info, but I’m a little confused. Are you saying that a dispensation is still necessary even though it’s not in the Code of Canon Law? I don’t think I’ve heard that before. I don’t go to the SSPX, but I’d be surprised to hear that’s their position.
They admit that they don’t have access to one dispensation (for crimen) reserved to the Pope. However, they seem to grant dispensation for the impediment to marriage arising from Holy Orders.
I was talking to a FSSP priest about this last week, who gave me this information. I am not sure if it is specifically in the new code or not. What I was saying is that there are things that are specifically spelled out in the 1917 code, which are left out in the 1983 code, which does not mean that you would not need a dispensation. Silence on the subject does not mean it is not necessary. i.e. mantillas.
Canon law allows individual priests to give the dispensation in certain circumstances. My understanding is that the SSPX Commission doesn’t claim the authority to give the dispensation; it merely advises their priests as to whether the conditions described in Canon law are met.
Ah, I was going to ask if you’re saying that the requirement of this dispensation is the same position as the headcovering requirement.
A good way to learn canon law and interpretation of it. By the SSPX who decided they were holier than the pope.
Do you have any information to add about Canon law or their interpretation of it? That would be more useful that posting insults.