Canonical Recognition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inquiringperson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Canonical recognition of what? Elaborate a little bit and provide some context. Where did you hear this?

-ACEGC
 
Sounds like it may no longer be considered in schism and is recognized by the canon as valid. Butte, I’m probably missing loads of information/nuance.
 
Canonical means legal. The SSPX has no legal recognition from the Catholic Church. Their religious activities in public are therefore illicit, sinful.
 
Can you please explain where this statement comes from. It was my understanding that they are just as legal as any other. I really don’t know.
 
Fransea said:
Can you please explain where this statement comes from. It was my understanding that they are just as legal as any other. I really don’t know.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you mean by legal.

With regard to the SSPX priests Rome has suspended all the faculties of SSPX priests.
 
Fransea said:
Can you please explain where this statement comes from. It was my understanding that they are just as legal as any other. I really don’t know.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you mean by legal.

With regard to the SSPX priests Rome has suspended all the faculties of SSPX priests.

For example, if you go to an SSPX priest for Confession any absolution you receive is invalid, except in the case of a penitent near to death.
 
Yes, that was what I was asking. Are they truly Catholic priest (canonically) If not, when were they considered not valid?
 
Fransea said:
Yes, that was what I was asking. Are they truly Catholic priest (canonically) If not, when were they considered not valid?
Click to expand...
They are truly Catholic proests because their ordinations were valid. However, they do not have the faculties of Catholic priests because the ordination was illicit. Rpughly from a canonical point of view you could say that they are priests not allowed to perform priestly duties.
 
Now, I’m totally confused. Their Catholic priests but not Catholic priests?
 
Fransea said:
Now, I’m totally confused. Their Catholic priests but not Catholic priests?
Click to expand...
No, they are Catholic priests.

When a priest is ordained, he is usually ordained by the bishop under whom he will serve. Should he, on his own, decide he is going to move to another diocese, he would not have the authority to say Mass publicly, to hear confessions, or any other sacrament (with extremely limited situations).

To Say Mass (etc.) he has to be ordained, and to be given the authority by the bishop to say Mass (etc.) as priest serve directly under their bishop.

The four bishops whom Archbishop Lefebvre ordained were immediately excommunicated. They ignored the excommunication and acted without authority from Rome - they had no diocese - and they proceeded to ordain men.

Those ordinations are valid but illicit (that is, illegal) as they (the bishops doing the ordaining) were excommunicated.

The Orthodox Churches are in schism (for about 1000 years now); their ordination are valid and their Eucharists are valid. As they are in schism, they are no longer bound by Canon law, so the issue of licitness does not apply to them.

The SSPX are not in de jure (legal)schism; whether or not they are in de facto (actual, as opposed to legal) schism has been discussed recently in this forum. You might want to read through that thread.

The SSPX are in a decades old argument with the Church concerning a number of matters primarily surrounding the documents of Vatican 2. Pope Benedict, directly and through the curia, has said in so many words that they are wrong, the Church is right, and they have to consent to that to be brought back into regular status, have the power to licitly as well as validly) ordain men, say Mass, hear confessions, etc.

The term that is used is that the priests have to be given faculties to say Mass, etc. That comes from a bishop; but the bishops of the SSPX cannot give that because they are in a suspended status and have no authority to do anything.
 
otjm said:
No, they are Catholic priests.

When a priest is ordained, he is usually ordained by the bishop under whom he will serve. Should he, on his own, decide he is going to move to another diocese, he would not have the authority to say Mass publicly, to hear confessions, or any other sacrament (with extremely limited situations).

To Say Mass (etc.) he has to be ordained, and to be given the authority by the bishop to say Mass (etc.) as priest serve directly under their bishop.

The four bishops whom Archbishop Lefebvre ordained were immediately excommunicated. They ignored the excommunication and acted without authority from Rome - they had no diocese - and they proceeded to ordain men.

Those ordinations are valid but illicit (that is, illegal) as they (the bishops doing the ordaining) were excommunicated.

The Orthodox Churches are in schism (for about 1000 years now); their ordination are valid and their Eucharists are valid. As they are in schism, they are no longer bound by Canon law, so the issue of licitness does not apply to them.

The SSPX are not in de jure (legal)schism; whether or not they are in de facto (actual, as opposed to legal) schism has been discussed recently in this forum. You might want to read through that thread.

The SSPX are in a decades old argument with the Church concerning a number of matters primarily surrounding the documents of Vatican 2. Pope Benedict, directly and through the curia, has said in so many words that they are wrong, the Church is right, and they have to consent to that to be brought back into regular status, have the power to licitly as well as validly) ordain men, say Mass, hear confessions, etc.

The term that is used is that the priests have to be given faculties to say Mass, etc. That comes from a bishop; but the bishops of the SSPX cannot give that because they are in a suspended status and have no authority to do anything.
Click to expand...
I think it would be more accurate to say that the Orthodox were never bound by canon law in the modern sense. The Orthodox did and do follow the ancient canons of the Fathers and ecumenical councils - at least their interpretation thereof. At the time of the schism, there was no universal “code” of canon law other than these ancient canons. Thus the situation with the Orthodox cannot be compared with that of the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre and the men be ordained were indeed bound by the canon law of the Latin Church and knowingly violated it.
 
twf said:
I think it would be more accurate to say that the Orthodox were never bound by canon law in the modern sense. The Orthodox did and do follow the ancient canons of the Fathers and ecumenical councils - at least their interpretation thereof. At the time of the schism, there was no universal “code” of canon law other than these ancient canons. Thus the situation with the Orthodox cannot be compared with that of the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre and the men be ordained were indeed bound by the canon law of the Latin Church and knowingly violated it.
Click to expand...
Correct; what we know as Canon law ( Or Collection of law) started in early 1900’s - I can never remember whether it was 1903 or 1913.

Elsewhere it has been said that a Church is schism is not bound by Canon law as they are not a part of the Catholic Church. Thus, the SSPX, who have not been declared in de jure schism with the Church, are bound by it. Were they to be declared to be in schism, Canon law would not longer apply to them. At least, that is how I understood the other discussion.

I mentioned the Orthodox, as the question of valid and licit were the issues the poster seemed to not be aware of. Licitness is not an issue with the Orthodox as they are in schism, and Canon law does not apply to them.
 
twf said:
I think it would be more accurate to say that the Orthodox were never bound by canon law in the modern sense. The Orthodox did and do follow the ancient canons of the Fathers and ecumenical councils - at least their interpretation thereof. At the time of the schism, there was no universal “code” of canon law other than these ancient canons. Thus the situation with the Orthodox cannot be compared with that of the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre and the men be ordained were indeed bound by the canon law of the Latin Church and knowingly violated it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The canonical status of the Eastern Orthodox is muddy at best - the reciprocal excommunications are lifted, but we’re still in schism. We kind of respect the other’s jurisdictions, while still establishing parallel hierarchies due to migration; we don’t seem to mind, but the Orthodox, especially the Russians, most definitely do. I guess the uniate history doesn’t really help, though. There are places (or at least one place that I know of, some island outside of Greece if I remember correctly) where Catholic and Orthodox priests cover each other’s parishes when needed, which I guess isn’t really permissible, but no one cares since it’s far away from our respective patriarchs. The Pope is still welcomed to Constantinople like he would be pre-schism, but still, we’re not even remotely ready for reunion yet. There are so many absurdities in our relationship that I probably wouldn’t be able to stop if I continued.

But as you say, the SSPX were bound by canon law, and they did break it intentionally. They’ve been given plenty of chances to be re-regularized, but have failed to meet the demands. They are suspended, but keep performing their illicit ministries as if everything was in order. One thing would be if they kept to what is valid even under suspension, but they also absolve invalidly and marry invalidly; both require faculties from a bishop in communion with Rome, which they don’t have. Even though they’re not formally in schism (unless something has happened recently - I have to admit I stopped bothering to pay attention to them a while ago), I’d say their situation is far worse than that of the Orthodox.
 
Fransea said:
Yes, that was what I was asking. Are they truly Catholic priest (canonically) If not, when were they considered not valid?
Click to expand...
They are validly ordained. But they are suspended the moment they are ordained. That suspension ad divinis means they are forbidden to celebrate ANY sacraments, to bless sacramentals, or to function as ministers in any capacity.

Canon law covers two concepts:
  • Licity
  • Validity
Licity is about what is allowed by the church. It is still a sin to knowingly do what is not licit.

Validity is what is about what is understood to be efficacious. Almost all that is invalid is also illicit. But not all that is illicit is invalid.

All SSPX priests (and deacons, and subdeacons) are suspended ad divinis. From the instant of their ordination. they have no licit ministry.

Their masses are valid, but illicit. For them to say the mass is a sin - of disobedience to the pope.

Their confessions are invalid - unless the penitent is dying or ignorant of their status.

Their baptisms are valid, but improperly recorded, done in violation of the law, and so illicit, and a sin for the cleric. But a baptism can be validly done by anyone, even an atheist.

and so on - most sacraments they do are invalid - they have no effect - because those sacraments require union to the church and a licit bishop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top