Can anyone explain the logic behind the stance of SSPX?

[catharina]

You say that your education is not our business,
so why should we beleive what you are claiming when others are telling us that under supplied jurisdiction, the confessions and marriages of the SSPX are valid? If you are not properly educated in the field of canon law, then we may not have confidence in your credibility in this area, particularly since others say you are absolutely wrong because of the application of supplied jurisdiction in this particular case.

i am not posting to make you “believe.”

Canon Law speaks for itself. It’s definitive.
Do with it what you will. Clearly it didn’t matter to M Lefebvre or his bishops.

 

[bobzills]

I read it, there’s no such thing in there. The Church has never allowed a blanket absolution that can only be given by the Pope, to an unknown group of people, not in the physical presence of the confessor, not in danger of death, and not unable to confess individually. It is made up.

Correct, It is made up by people who don’t want to tell us anything about their education or expertise in the area of canon law.

 

[bobzills]

i am not posting to make you “believe.”

Canon Law speaks for itself. It’s definitive.
Do with it what you will. Clearly it didn’t matter to M Lefebvre or his bishops.

No. What is clear is that you do not have the education or expertise to understand the concept of supplied jurisdiction.

 

[mattkubes]

No. What is clear is that you do not have the education or expertise to understand the concept of supplied jurisdiction.

For the sake of fairness, she did allude to her education in the area in post 335

 

[catharina]

No. What is clear is that you do not have the education or expertise to understand the concept of supplied jurisdiction.

You haven’t even the slightest right to demand my credentials.

The Pope is the ruler, promulgator and authority of Canon Law. Only the Pope. If he chooses to use any of the reasons to provide/extend a general absolution to those who have sold their souls to excommunicated bishops, that is his absolute right.

 

[BrendanD]

No I’m not. I’m just telling you what Cardinal Hoyos told the media when he was in Nebraska for the last ordination of the FSSP.

Where did the Ecclesia Dei Commission say that SSPX absolutions and marriages are invalid? Would love to see a quote or a link for that.

Why the Church gives faculties to the Society of St. John Vianney, if they are truly suspended and denies them of the SSPX, I cannot answer that. That would be a question for the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

If this is the case, there must be a logical reason.

The fact that the Church has recognized the validity of marriages performed by suspended priests contradicts the claim that SSPX priests cannot validly witness marriages due to suspension. That is pretty clear.

 

[catharina]

Yes, but there are canon lawyers, such as Pete Vere, going around saying that the confessions and marriages of the SSPX are not valid. And it is more than one canon lawyer saying such.
Of course, these same canon lawyers will be hard pressed to explain how all of these invalid SSPX confessions and marriages will suddenly become valid as soon as the SSPX accepts the conditions for regularisation.

For the moment, I’ll quote you to you.
I need no credentials to do that.

 

[JReducation]

Why don’t you show us where they said that? Because they never have.

You are in disagreement with the Magisterium of the Church.** The Church recognized the validity of the marriages witnessed by suspended priests of the Society of St. John Vianney. No sanation was done.**

I think you may be mistaking this group with another. I checked them out and they are in full communion with the Holy See and they have their own Prelature, which allows the the power of sanation. Prior to this, they were censured. Their bishop, who was illicitly ordained by an SSPX bishop, asked to return to Rome.

Here is the quote from the document published by Cardinal Hoyos.

However, Mgr Rangel did not wish an abnormal situation within the Priestly Union to continue indefinitely. He made the firsts steps towards reconciliation with Rome in 2000 and met Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos (Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy and President of the Pontifical Commission ‘Eclessia Dei’). This resulted in correspondence between the Union and Rome which eventually led to full remission of the previous censure.

latin-mass-society.org/ssjv.htm

JR

 

[BrendanD]

If he chooses to use any of the reasons to provide/extend a general absolution to those who have sold their souls to excommunicated bishops, that is his absolute right.

The Pope can absolve people that are thousands of miles away from him, even though he doesn’t know who they are, and they don’t know that they’re receiving absolution? That’s not even remotely similar to what a general absolution is.

 

[BrendanD]

I think you may be mistaking this group with another. I checked them out and they are in full communion with the Holy See and they have their own Prelature, which allows the the power of sanation. Prior to this, they were censured. Their bishop, who was illicitly ordained by an SSPX bishop, asked to return to Rome.

No, that is who I’m talking about. The Church recognized the validity of their marriages, even though they had no faculties, and were in exactly the same canonical situation as the SSPX. They did not have to get radical sanations or repeat the ceremony.

 

[catharina]

The Pope can absolve people that are thousands of miles away from him, even though he doesn’t know who they are, and they don’t know that they’re receiving absolution? That’s not even remotely similar to what a general absolution is.

Do you think that a chaplain who gives general absolution prior to battle “knows” all of those who are being forgiven? The Pope can do as he choses. He makes the law. He can change the law. He is not bound by the law. Read the Code - or better yet, study it.

 

[catharina]

For the sake of fairness, she did allude to her education in the area in post 335

How kind and observant and truthful of you. Thank you.

I’m very used to being bashed in this forum by many who support excommunicated bishops.

 

[mattkubes]

Do you think that a chaplain who gives general absolution prior to battle “knows” all of those who are being forgiven? The Pope can do as he choses. He makes the law. He can change the law. He is not bound by the law. Read the Code - or better yet, study it.

Hmmmm, I know it applies to the battlefield situation because of the danger of death (which qualifies it as an extraordinary circumstance), but would that same principle really apply here? I’ve pretty much been 100% with you up until this point.

 

[BrendanD]

Do you think that a chaplain who gives general absolution prior to battle “knows” all of those who are being forgiven?

You’re trying to change the subject. What we’re talking about is not general absolution. The original claim was this:

The only way to validate the absolutions would be for the Pope to absolve all those people who confessed to SSPX priest when they had no faculties. If this were to happen, then the person giving the absolution is the Pope, the individual priest who heard the confession.

There is absolutely no basis for that claim in canon law or tradition, nor has any such thing ever been done in the history of the Catholic Church. I’ve never heard it suggested by anyone before until it was posted here, with no source or evidence. There is no precedent for the claim that absolution can be given when the penitent is not physically present before the confessor (as evidenced by the fact that the Church rejected confession by telegraph in the 1800s.)

 

[catharina]

Hmmmm, I know it applies to the battlefield situation because of the danger of death (which qualifies it as an extraordinary circumstance), but would that same principle really apply here? I’ve pretty much been 100% with you up until this point.

The fact (truth) is that the Pope can use the law in any way he chooses.

 

[catharina]

You’re trying to change the subject. What we’re talking about is not general absolution. The original claim was this:

There is absolutely no basis for that claim in canon law or tradition, nor has any such thing ever been done in the history of the Catholic Church. I’ve never heard it suggested by anyone before until it was posted here, with no source or evidence.

Simply, I’m saying this:

If (for example) the Holy Father decides to interpret the Code in this way, he can do so. NOT rocket science. It’s an example of how the Holy Father COULD use the Code if he so chooses.

 

[JReducation]

Where did the Ecclesia Dei Commission say that SSPX absolutions and marriages are invalid? Would love to see a quote or a link for that.

The fact that the Church has recognized the validity of marriages performed by suspended priests contradicts the claim that SSPX priests cannot validly witness marriages due to suspension. That is pretty clear.

Let’s assume for a moment that there was a contradiction, which according the Latin Mass Society there was a censure placed on the priests of St. John Vianney; but let’s assume there was a contradiction. This does not make the absolutions valid.

If the Church says to one group you can do this and to another, you cannot. It is what it is.

One can argue about the fairness of it. I believe that one would have a valid reason to question the fairness, but certainly not the authority to do so.

There is a difference between fairness and authority. Life isn’t always fair. We all agree with that.

On the other hand, the Church never does something without a good reason. The fact that those reasons are not always well known to the general public does not mean they do not exist. Many things are said and decided behind closed doors and what we see are the outcome.

Those of us who do not work on these commissions are not always going to know every detail as to why they decided one way in a given situation and another in a similar situation, until they are ready to tell us.

That’s something that we have to learn to live with. The Church is not a democracy. We can quote canon law until we’re blue in the face, but as an old professor of mine in grad school once said, “Canon law is only as binding as the reigning pope allows it to be, for he is above the law as the Supreme Canonist of the Church, the Keeper of the Keys and the one with the power to bind and unbind.” That’s scriptural and rational. We can’t argue against that fact.

JR

 

[BrendanD]

Simply, I’m saying this:

If (for example) the Holy Father decides to interpret the Code in this way, he can do so. NOT rocket science. It’s an example of how the Holy Father COULD use the Code if he so chooses.

Are you saying the Pope can do something that the Church previously taught was impossible? Such as giving absolution to someone who is not physically present.

 

[catharina]

Are you saying the Pope can do something that the Church previously taught was impossible? Such as giving absolution to someone who is not physically present.

You mean the way Jesus healed Jairus’s daughter without meeting her?

The Pope interprets the law as he sees fit.
What part of that statement is difficult for you?

 

[BrendanD]

If the Church says to one group you can do this and to another, you cannot. It is what it is.

Avoiding the issue. You claim that suspended priests can not witness marriages, and that the ceremony must be repeated. But the Church has recognized marriages performed by suspended priests, and did not require the ceremonies to be repeated. A sacrament is either validly performed, or it’s not. Its validity can’t be changed after the fact.

I’ll ask again, where did the Ecclesia Dei Commission say that SSPX marriages and confessions are invalid? You claimed that they stated so, but provided no quote or link to back it up.