confirmed by Bp Williamson

[Brendan]

It’s not that a bishop “does not need faculties” because of his episcopal ordination. They still need to have faculties, even though barring some extreme & unlikely circumstances, they will always be granted them…

Again, I would still disagree, in the sense that faculties that affect the validity of the Sacrament are required.

If, by, faculties, you mean the permission that is mentioned 883-2 and that would affect the licitity of the Sacrament, I would agree.

If they are distinct entities, then that logical contradiction that I mentioned in my previous post arises. An act cannot be both lawful and illict at the same time.

 

[FrDavid96]

Again, I would still disagree, in the sense that faculties that affect the validity of the Sacrament are required.

If, by, faculties, you mean the permission that is mentioned 883-2 and that would affect the licitity of the Sacrament, I would agree.

If they are distinct entities, then that logical contradiction that I mentioned in my previous post arises. An act cannot be both lawful and illict at the same time.

As I said, all I intended by my last post was to explain that even a bishop needs to have faculties in order to minister–nothing beyond that.

I was not (yet) at the point of taking that to more specifics.

The reason for doing it that way is that in order to go further with the discussion, we have to first understand as a “given” the simple fact that even a bishop needs to have faculties in contrast to the idea that a bishop does not need faculties by virtue of his episcopal ordination.

Do you see what I’m getting at now? Yesterday was a busy day, so I might not have been as clear as I would have liked.

 

[dans0622]

…Interestingly, the New Commentary on Canon Law (p. 193) includes 882 in the list of canons in 144 §2. Was this deleted at some point in the last few decades by the Holy Father?

Hello,

Where did you get the quote of c. 144? It was incomplete since, yes, c. 882 is included in paragraph 2 and has not been removed.

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

There are a number of things that 409 is presumably addressing, such as the legislative and judicial powers of the diocesan bishop. However, it’s not clear to me that an auxiliary bishop would lack the faculty to confirm unless it had been specifically granted by the bishop.

He would lack such faculties in the extremely unusual situation where he does not have faculties to minister in the first place. He would also lack those faculties if the ordinary specifically withdraws them—not very likely but still possible.

Again, the point is that even an auxiliary bishop needs to have faculties from the ordinary of the place in order to minister.

Even if that were the case, it’s not clear that such is necessary for validity rather than simply licity.

Considering that SSPX ordinations are presumed valid, I don’t see the basis for treating the Sacrament of Confirmation differently. In contrast, matrimony and penance are simultaneously sacraments and legal acts of the Church, which is why faculties are essential for their validity.

I haven’t taken the time to carefully assess this, but it is worth noting that canon 883 is also cited elsewhere in canon law:Interestingly, the New Commentary on Canon Law (p. 193) includes 882 in the list of canons in 144 §2. Was this deleted at some point in the last few decades by the Holy Father?

You’re missing my point.

Saying that the law sometimes supplies faculties is not the same thing as saying that faculties are not needed in the first place. They are still needed.

 

[Digitonomy]

Hello,Where did you get the quote of c. 144? It was incomplete since, yes, c. 882 is included in paragraph 2 and has not been removed.Dan

Interesting; I see at the Vatican site you are correct. I was reading the Eulogos IntraText CT version. Perhaps the latter has a typo. Or maybe it can be translated from the Latin in more than one way .

 

[Digitonomy]

He would lack such faculties in the extremely unusual situation where he does not have faculties to minister in the first place. He would also lack those faculties if the ordinary specifically withdraws them—not very likely but still possible.

Again, the point is that even an auxiliary bishop needs to have faculties from the ordinary of the place in order to minister…
Saying that the law sometimes supplies faculties is not the same thing as saying that faculties are not needed in the first place. They are still needed.

So could the ordinary withdraw from a priest the faculty of confecting the Eucharist?

Your first post in the context of the rest of the thread made me think that you were addressing the larger question with your narrow point, but the way I’m reading it now, it sounds like you don’t disagree that the confirmation was valid, you’re just quibbling with a misstatement by Brendan.

 

[Old_Salt]

SSPX Confirmations done by the Bishops are accepted affirmatively. I am personally aware of two Diocesan Priests, and a former seminarian, who were Confirmed by Bps Lefebvre and Williamson and then entered diocesan seminaries, and their Confirmation certificates were accepted outright by the ordaining dioceses.

 

[FrDavid96]

So could the ordinary withdraw from a priest the faculty of confecting the Eucharist?

Yes.
And if you disagree, it’s because you don’t understand your own question.

Your first post in the context of the rest of the thread made me think that you were addressing the larger question with your narrow point, but the way I’m reading it now, it sounds like you don’t disagree that the confirmation was valid, you’re just quibbling with a misstatement by Brendan.

I’m not the one quibbling here. I’ve said several times now that I was addressing one thing and one thing only—the fact that even a bishop needs faculties to minister. Please read what I wrote instead of reading-into what I wrote.

 

[Brendan]

Yes.
And if you disagree, it’s because you don’t understand your own question.

I do have a question for you. If a priest had these faculties removed and still attempted to confect the Eucharist, would the result be the Eucharist, albeit confected illicitly, or would the gifts remain as simple bread and wine?

In other words, should we bow down and adore our Lord Sacramentally Present before us, or ask for some salsa to go with the chips

 

[FrDavid96]

I do have a question for you. If a priest had these faculties removed and still attempted to confect the Eucharist, would the result be the Eucharist, albeit confected illicitly, or would the gifts remain as simple bread and wine?

In other words, should we bow down and adore our Lord Sacramentally Present before us, or ask for some salsa to go with the chips

There is a reason why I’m approaching this the way that I am. There’s a good reason for it. I am wonderring if anyone reading but not posting has picked up on it yet?

As I tried to explain in a recent post. First we need to understand the fact that even a bishop needs to have faculties in order to minister. Episcopal ordination all by itself is not sufficient.

Those faculties might come by the law itself. They might come by virtue of office (a bishop-ordinary is shepherd of his own diocese). They might come from the bishop-ordinary (in the case of an auxiliary or a retired bishop). But the fact is that regardless of the “how” even a bishop needs faculties.

One more time, this is the ONLY thing I’m saying for now. Nothing else because that comes later, but the “what comes later” won’t work unless we can first understand that a bishop does need faculties to minister.

 

[JReducation]

I received the Sacrament of Confirmation from Bishop Williamson of the SSPX 7 years ago. Did I validly receive the sacrament since the SSPX is in irregular relations with Rome?

One should not ask for sacraments from a priest, when he knows that it is illegal for that priest to administer the sacraments. A suspended deacon, priest or bishop cannot legally administer sacraments. Penance may be validly celebrated in danger of death, without the permission of the diocesan bishop.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Old_Salt]

Any validly ordained priest can confect the Blessed Sacrament.
To confect the Blessed Sacrament does not require faculties.

A priest without faculties can validly offer Mass.
He just offeres it illicitly.

 

[JReducation]

Any validly ordained priest can confect the Blessed Sacrament.
To confect the Blessed Sacrament does not require faculties.

A priest without faculties can validly offer Mass.
He **just **offeres it illicitly.

There is not such thing in Church law as “just” illicit. That’s the same as saying “it’s just illegal”.

If something is illegal, it’s serious business.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Digitonomy]

"Digitonomy:

it sounds like you don’t disagree that the confirmation was valid, you’re just quibbling with a misstatement by Brendan.

I’m not the one quibbling here. I’ve said several times now that I was addressing one thing and one thing only—the fact that even a bishop needs faculties to minister.

Now I have to quibble over the word quibble, in the interest of defining our terms here and in future. I would define quibble simply as “a small disagreement,” which certainly seems to apply to your argument with Brendan. Just to be sure, I looked it up:

1: to evade the point of an argument by caviling about words

Example:

I think it’s a perfectly proper and in fact laudable thing to correct members when they are imprecise in their statements. But I also think it’s proper to call it quibbling, if the thread topic is a larger issue.

 

[Old_Salt]

I did not mean to downplay the offering of Mass illicitly or illegally.
Rather I was stating that it is still valid, but illicit, if offered without faculties.

I am sorry about my wording.

 

[JReducation]

I did not mean to downplay the offering of Mass illicitly or illegally.
Rather I was stating that it is still valid, but illicit, if offered without faculties.

I am sorry about my wording.

That sounds better. Thank you for the clarification.

The reason that I jumped on that is because there are many SSPX supporters who justify the SSPX bishops by saying, “It’s valid, just illicit.” But, if Fr. Bozo, dresses up as a clown to celebrate mass, suddenly, it’s **not just **illicit. The concern over validity flies out the window and the hurricane over liceity blows in full force.

We have to be consistent. Bishop Williamson and Fr. Bozo have a moral obligation to celebrate the sacraments validly and licitly.

Again, thank you for your clarification.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[FrDavid96]

I think it’s a perfectly proper and in fact laudable thing to correct members when they are imprecise in their statements. But I also think it’s proper to call it quibbling, if the thread topic is a larger issue.

It is the larger issue.

One more time, I’ll say it: In order to address the larger issue, we must first understand that a bishop needs faculties in order to minister.

You might not understand the why of it. I’m trying to get us there, but apparently I cannot because you’re trying to put different meanings into my posts (like saying that I’m quibbling with Brendan) because you don’t understand “what” it is that I’m getting at.

What I’m trying to explain here is impossible to explain without first laying the foundation. Were I to jump ahead and state the conclusion first, it simply would not make sense and would not be understood without the starting point, the “given.”

 

[JReducation]

It is the larger issue.

One more time, I’ll say it: In order to address the larger issue, we must first understand that a bishop needs faculties in order to minister.

You might not understand the why of it. I’m trying to get us there, but apparently I cannot because you’re trying to put different meanings into my posts (like saying that I’m quibbling with Brendan) because you don’t understand “what” it is that I’m getting at.

What I’m trying to explain here is impossible to explain without first laying the foundation. Were I to jump ahead and state the conclusion first, it simply would not make sense and would not be understood without the starting point, the “given.”

I know exactly the starting point from which you’re coming, but I’ll let you lay it out.

Your point is well made. Everyone needs faculties from some source. But . . . continue Father.

I’ll work with my point from the receiving end. If one knows that something is illegal, why would one want to request it?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lormar]

There is a reason why I’m approaching this the way that I am. There’s a good reason for it. I am wonderring if anyone reading but not posting has picked up on it yet?

As I tried to explain in a recent post. First we need to understand the fact that even a bishop needs to have faculties in order to minister. Episcopal ordination all by itself is not sufficient.

Those faculties might come by the law itself. They might come by virtue of office (a bishop-ordinary is shepherd of his own diocese). They might come from the bishop-ordinary (in the case of an auxiliary or a retired bishop). But the fact is that regardless of the “how” even a bishop needs faculties.

One more time, this is the ONLY thing I’m saying for now. Nothing else because that comes later, but the “what comes later” won’t work unless we can first understand that a bishop does need faculties to minister.

I read the following the other night in Dom Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year.

We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastor have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate: it matters not; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors.

Father, is this what you are trying to get at?

 

[FrDavid96]

I read the following the other night in Dom Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year.

Father, is this what you are trying to get at?

It’s a good quote, but no, it’s not exactly what I’m getting at.

Like I’ve said, we first have to understand that a bishop does need to have faculties to minister. Without that as a basis or starting-point, the rest (the part that I’m holding back) will be even harder to understand than it is now.

But suffice to say that no, the Petrine Ministry is not exactly what I’m getting at (or trying to at least).