Of course, I am not a canon lawyer, but I believe a priest who does not have faculties cannot validly (not merely licitly) absolve as well, except in danger of death.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
If the person “hearing” confession lacks the priesthood, he lacks the power to absolve sin. This is clear from canon 965 which provides that only a priest (sacerdos, that is, a bishop or presbyter) is the minister of the sacrament of penance.
Canon 966 continues by adding the faculty as a requirement for validity: §1. For the valid absolution of sins it is required that, besides the power received through sacred ordination, the minister possess the faculty to exercise that power over the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.
Canon 966 §2 then tells us how the faculty is obtained: a priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a concession granted by competent authority in accord with the norm of can. 969.
The law gives the faculty if a priest lacks the faculty from a competent authority, in two sets of circumstances.
a) Canon 976 provides the faculty in cases of danger of death to any priest.
b) Canon 144 §2 may or may not provide it depending on the circumstances which would present a case of factual or legal common error or a case of positive and probable doubt of law or of fact.
As one of my canon law professors used to say, if you think it applies, it probably doesn’t. This was his way of warning against a too facile application of the principle of ecclesia supplet. Many people tend to think of it as a universal panacea for every mistake or ineffective exercise of governing or sanctifying power. It is not.
But it certainly does not work to provide a faculty to one who is not capable of receiving it, as a non priest would be. Then we would be speaking of Deus supplet.
Canon 966 continues by adding the faculty as a requirement for validity: §1. For the valid absolution of sins it is required that, besides the power received through sacred ordination, the minister possess the faculty to exercise that power over the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.
Canon 966 §2 then tells us how the faculty is obtained: a priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a concession granted by competent authority in accord with the norm of can. 969.
The law gives the faculty if a priest lacks the faculty from a competent authority, in two sets of circumstances.
a) Canon 976 provides the faculty in cases of danger of death to any priest.
b) Canon 144 §2 may or may not provide it depending on the circumstances which would present a case of factual or legal common error or a case of positive and probable doubt of law or of fact.
As one of my canon law professors used to say, if you think it applies, it probably doesn’t. This was his way of warning against a too facile application of the principle of ecclesia supplet. Many people tend to think of it as a universal panacea for every mistake or ineffective exercise of governing or sanctifying power. It is not.
But it certainly does not work to provide a faculty to one who is not capable of receiving it, as a non priest would be. Then we would be speaking of Deus supplet.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Just Lurking,Here is the canon law for ecclesia supplet:
Can. 144 §1. In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum.
§2. The same norm is applied to the faculties mentioned in cann. ⇒ 882, ⇒ 883, ⇒ 966, and ⇒ 1111, §1.
Canon 144 would not apply in the cases we’re discussing because the “priest” himself is an imposter and cannot exercise governance in the Church (internal or external forum). In this case, there’s no possibility of a reasonable doubt as to the law–he knows full well that he can’t do what he’s attempting to do. Jurisdiction can only be supplied to one who is at least capable of exercising it.
The same holds for validly ordained priest who has been suspended. He knows he can’t do what he’s doing. On the other hand, if there’s no real danger of death, but the suspended priest himself was deceived into believing that there was, then in that case c144 would apply.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Correct. We must remember that absolution is a juridic act of the Church–that means that the priest is acting as a “legal” representative of the Church, exercising the Church’s power of governance. That’s why absolution can only happen if a priest has faculties. This is not the same thing as the ability to consecrate the Eucharist which flows from priestly ordination itself. That’s why Mass celebrated by a suspended priest is valid but illicit, but confession by a suspended priest is both invalid and illicit (outside of the cases where the law itself provides faculties).Of course, I am not a canon lawyer, but I believe a priest who does not have faculties cannot validly (not merely licitly) absolve as well, except in danger of death.
I think that some of our readers and posters might be trying to apply the same principle to confession that we are so familiar with applying to Mass.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Thanks Fr.Not quite. Ecclesia Supplet applies in both cases. But it applies only to the penitent receiving forgiveness from God and the graces of the Sacrament (absolution as such does not happen). Both of those apply because the penitent is ignorant of the fact that the “priest” cannot absolve, and is therefore acting in good faith. Jurisdiction is only one of the many applications of Ecclesia Supplet.
Strange, though. I’ve never seen Ecclessia Supplet used in the manner you describe above, in the case where a non-ordained person tries to administer a sacrament.
You said that jurisdiction is only one of the many applications of Ecclesia Supplet. Can you list the others?
I’d also be indebted to you if you could point us towards some source or document that describes Ecclesia Supplet invoked in the first instance above (a “pretend” priest trying to administer a sacrament).
Also, you said that in such a case the “grace of sacrament” obtains. I’m not sure, exactly, what you mean by the “grace of the sacrament?” My phrase was the sacramental grace, and all that I know about sacramental theology tells me that without a valid sacrament no sacramental grace obtains, although grace might, and grace which accomplishes some of the same things as sacramental grace does, but not sacramental grace proper. Thoughts on that?
Thanks for all the above,
VC
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
hmm? Fr. you said in reply to my post that Ecclessia Supplet applied in both cases? My first case was the imposter priest.Just Lurking,
Canon 144 would not apply in the cases we’re discussing because the “priest” himself is an imposter and cannot exercise governance in the Church (internal or external forum). In this case, there’s no possibility of a reasonable doubt as to the law–he knows full well that he can’t do what he’s attempting to do. Jurisdiction can only be supplied to one who is at least capable of exercising it.
VC
F
FrDavid96
Guest
With regard to Ecclesia Supplet:
The principle does not “supply” absolution, but it does “supply” the graces of the Sacrament–meaning that the penitent who is ignorant still receives all the Graces (given from God of course) AS IF the priest were real. This applies only because the penitent is ignorant of the facts, and is acting in good faith. Nothing is “supplied” to the priest (real or fake) because the intent here is to deceive.
The principle does not “supply” absolution, but it does “supply” the graces of the Sacrament–meaning that the penitent who is ignorant still receives all the Graces (given from God of course) AS IF the priest were real. This applies only because the penitent is ignorant of the facts, and is acting in good faith. Nothing is “supplied” to the priest (real or fake) because the intent here is to deceive.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Fr.,
I am confused. Apologies!
Are you saying that in the first case of a impostor priest, *Ecclesia Supplet *applies to *the penitent?
*That this is actually a proper case to apply the term *Ecclesia Supplet?
*Does that mean you reply to Just Lurking about Ecclessia Supplet not applying was limited only to applying it the the impostor priest, but that the doctrine of Ecclessia Supplet was still useful in the scenario?
Thank you!
VC
I am confused. Apologies!
Are you saying that in the first case of a impostor priest, *Ecclesia Supplet *applies to *the penitent?
*That this is actually a proper case to apply the term *Ecclesia Supplet?
*Does that mean you reply to Just Lurking about Ecclessia Supplet not applying was limited only to applying it the the impostor priest, but that the doctrine of Ecclessia Supplet was still useful in the scenario?
Thank you!
VC
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Fr. David, I’m confused about this as well. It seems that you are saying that the principle *Ecclesia Supplet *is at work here to supply the graces of a non-existent sacrament. Is this really a case of *Ecclessia Supplet *or, as Dc. Lansing mentioned, Deus supplet.With regard to Ecclesia Supplet:
The principle does not “supply” absolution, but it does “supply” the graces of the Sacrament–meaning that the penitent who is ignorant still receives all the Graces (given from God of course) AS IF the priest were real.
I guess I don’t understand the invocation of the doctrine of *Ecclesia Supplet *in the case of an impostor priest.
Thank you,
VC
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yes. The penitent receives all the graces of the Sacrament, but does not receive absolution. Ecclesia Supplet can supply the Graces but NOT the Sacramental form of absolution.Fr.,
I am confused. Apologies!
Are you saying that in the first case of a impostor priest, *Ecclesia Supplet *applies to the penitent?
While there are formal applications of it (like canon 144) I don’t think there’s an official definition of it, or when it applies. There’s no canonical definition of which I’m aware. It’s more of a principle than it is a legal term. In other words, it can have a legal/canonical application, but it’s not limited to that.That this is actually a proper case to apply the term Ecclesia Supplet?
Here’s what I meant. Ecclesia supplet still applies in that the Graces are conferred. We can’t say that “it does not apply because c 144 doesn’t apply” since the canon gives one application of it, but doesn’t necessarily limit the principle to only applying in cases of jurisdiction. We can’t apply canon 144 to an imposter priest because jurisdiction cannot ever apply to an imposter. Therefore absolution does not happen. Ecclesia Supplet would NOT supply the jurisdiction (and thereby absolution) but it would supply the forgiveness and the graces of the Sacrament.Does that mean you reply to Just Lurking about Ecclessia Supplet not applying was limited only to applying it the the impostor priest, but that the doctrine of Ecclessia Supplet was still useful in the scenario?
Thank you!
Does that make it more clear or more confusing?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Actually, I’d say that it’s both Ecclesia supplet and Deus supplet.Fr. David, I’m confused about this as well. It seems that you are saying that the principle *Ecclesia Supplet *is at work here to supply the graces of a non-existent sacrament. Is this really a case of *Ecclessia Supplet *or, as Dc. Lansing mentioned, Deus supplet.
I guess I don’t understand the invocation of the doctrine of *Ecclesia Supplet *in the case of an impostor priest.
Thank you,
VC
Neither are truly legal terms, but principles. If God supplies, then the Church also supplies, since the Church is His instrument.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Ok, Fr., it gives me a basis upon which to understand your use of the term Ecclesia Supplet.Actually, I’d say that it’s both Ecclesia supplet and Deus supplet.
Neither are truly legal terms, but principles. If God supplies, then the Church also supplies, since the Church is His instrument.
To my mind, though, it seems like an awfully broad use of the principle. I was under the impression that the term has some sort of technical meaning.
This broad use seems, to me at least, to dissolve the usefulness of the term. Your broad usage would seem to make any time one receives grace as a case of Ecclesia Supplet. It would apply to normal, everyday reception of the sacraments as well as any extra-sacramental grace.
Also, it seems to me that saying if God supplies then the Church supplies is a strange construction. Wouldn’t it rather be if the Church supplies than God supplies because the Church is the instrument of God? Surely God could act without his instrument, but the instrument can’t act without God.
Just my thoughts. Thanks for clarifying what you meant!
VC
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Ecclesia Supplet is a very broad term. It applies when something is lacking, but not due to an intentional omission, but an “accidental” one. It would apply here to the penitent, but not to the priest (real or not).Ok, Fr., it gives me a basis upon which to understand your use of the term Ecclesia Supplet.
To my mind, though, it seems like an awfully broad use of the principle. I was under the impression that the term has some sort of technical meaning.
This broad use seems, to me at least, to dissolve the usefulness of the term. Your broad usage would seem to make any time one receives grace as a case of Ecclesia Supplet. It would apply to normal, everyday reception of the sacraments as well as any extra-sacramental grace.
Also, it seems to me that saying if God supplies then the Church supplies is a strange construction. Wouldn’t it rather be if the Church supplies than God supplies because the Church is the instrument of God? Surely God could act without his instrument, but the instrument can’t act without God.
Just my thoughts. Thanks for clarifying what you meant!
VC
It would not apply to ordinary circumstances since nothing needs to be “supplied.”
Yes, the principle might be abused. If a priest knowingly does something improper, but says “oh well, ecclesia supplet” then it would NOT apply because it’s an intentional, rather than accidental act.
God is supplying, but He acts through His instrument, the Church, the Body of Christ.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Thanks Fr.
I think I understand how you want to use it. I just can’t see the utility of using it that way.
I am interested, however, in learning more about this broad use. Any chance you could supply us with another source that uses the phrase *Ecclessia Supplet *in this broad way?
Thanks.
VC
I think I understand how you want to use it. I just can’t see the utility of using it that way.
I am interested, however, in learning more about this broad use. Any chance you could supply us with another source that uses the phrase *Ecclessia Supplet *in this broad way?
Thanks.
VC
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Fr. David,God is supplying, but He acts through His instrument, the Church, the Body of Christ.
Can you explicate this more, especially in the case of an innocent penitent and an impostor “priest” who tries to simulate the sacrament of penance.
I think it is clear to everyone that in such a case the innocent penitent is forgiven although not absolved through a sacrament. There is no sacrament and no absolution. But forgiveness is distinct from absolution (although normally they coincide). So, done, and done. The penitent is forgiven.
But you say that this penitent is forgiven is a case of Ecclesia Supplet, “the Church provides.”
To explain this you say that it really is God supplying, but that He acts through His instrument, the Church, the Body of Christ.
What do you have in mind? Where is the Church acting in this above simulation of the sacrament? I don’t imagine you mean God is using the impostor priest as His instrument, and said impostor priest is the Church, hence Ecclesia Supplet? I also don’t imagine you mean that the penitent is a member of the Body of Christ and therefore is the Church, and *this *is who is acting when we say the “church supplies”.
I guess I am having a difficult time finding the ecclesia to justify the use of the phrase *Ecclesia Supplet.
*I would think that saying God provides forgiveness and Grace to the hapless penitent a sufficient explanation of why he is forgiven. I don’t understand saying, in addition, that the Church supplies.
Maybe it would help me understand it if you could describe a similar scenario. Or perhaps an article or book that delves deeper into this topic – one that uses the phrase Ecclesia Supplet to describe God forgiving someone immediately.
Thanks,
VC
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Allow me to try to put it this way. Because the penitent is a member of the Church that’s why I would say that “the Church supplies.” The penitent is making an honest attempt to utilize (if I may use the word) the Sacrament, which is entrusted to the Church, and so the Church sort of “steps in” supplies the forgiveness and graces which would otherwise be absent. Even though there’s no priest to directly represent the Church, the Church is still present spiritually.Fr. David,
Can you explicate this more, especially in the case of an innocent penitent and an impostor “priest” who tries to simulate the sacrament of penance.
I think it is clear to everyone that in such a case the innocent penitent is forgiven although not absolved through a sacrament. There is no sacrament and no absolution. But forgiveness is distinct from absolution (although normally they coincide). So, done, and done. The penitent is forgiven.
But you say that this penitent is forgiven is a case of Ecclesia Supplet, “the Church provides.”
To explain this you say that it really is God supplying, but that He acts through His instrument, the Church, the Body of Christ.
What do you have in mind? Where is the Church acting in this above simulation of the sacrament? I don’t imagine you mean God is using the impostor priest as His instrument, and said impostor priest is the Church, hence Ecclesia Supplet? I also don’t imagine you mean that the penitent is a member of the Body of Christ and therefore is the Church, and *this *is who is acting when we say the “church supplies”.
I guess I am having a difficult time finding the ecclesia to justify the use of the phrase *Ecclesia Supplet.
*I would think that saying God provides forgiveness and Grace to the hapless penitent a sufficient explanation of why he is forgiven. I don’t understand saying, in addition, that the Church supplies.
Maybe it would help me understand it if you could describe a similar scenario. Or perhaps an article or book that delves deeper into this topic – one that uses the phrase Ecclesia Supplet to describe God forgiving someone immediately.
Thanks,
VC
I’ve been thinking about this for the past few hours, and I think the way I would describe my understanding of Ecclesia supplet would be to say that we FIRST have a scenario in which we know that something is missing, and we know that somehow the graces are supplied. Once we’ve arrived at that conclusion, only then do we ask the question “how did this come about?” and answer that with the very broad principle of Ecclesia supplet.
That’s different from an abuse of the principle in which a person (lay or clergy) intentionally omits something and relies on the principle of supply as a sort of liturgical crutch or excuse for doing something improper.
All Graces flow through the Church, since the Church Herself was established by Christ to be the sole means of Grace. So we cannot seperate the actions of God apart from the Church even if a direct connection cannot be defined.
P
PJM
Guest
No, at least not in the way we can easily understand.I know this is something that would happen in a movie, but I guess it could happen in real life too.
If someone goes to confession, and the person hearing the confessions is not really a priest, he is an imposter, and the confession goes as normal, the person confessing never finds out that anything went wrong, were his sins forgiven by God?
However they could receice the Sacraments worthly.
But we rely on the Understanding and Justice of God, who with Devine Mercy, remove the burden of sin.
If such a person were to discover the prank later, such a person would be obligated to “reconfess” there sins. Explaing what has happened to the Confessor.
God bless,
PJM m.c
P
pnewton
Guest
Thanks for the explanation. I was lurking and seeing how you would define it. I really appreciate your time and effort on this one.All Graces flow through the Church, since the Church Herself was established by Christ to be the sole means of Grace. So we cannot seperate the actions of God apart from the Church even if a direct connection cannot be defined.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Ha! Smoked you out. Thanks for chiming in.Thanks for the explanation. I was lurking and seeing how you would define it. I really appreciate your time and effort on this one.
As I read that, let me clarify that I mean “even if there is no direct visible connection between the person and the Church.” Of course, the connection between God and the Church is always there!
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Thank you Fr. David.
I understand your explanation of why you want to use the phrase Ecclesia Supplet, and what meaning you give it.
I think what I was trying to say was that if
That seems to me to turn the utility of the phrase on its head. For instance, I’ve never seen anyone ever mention the term Ecclesia Supplet in connection with “Baptism by desire”. Another example: even though extra-sacramental forgiveness through perfect contrition is never considered apart from the actual sacrament of penance (to which is must refer by implicit or explicit intention), I’ve never seen that described as a case of Ecclesia Supplet. Maybe I’ve just never encountered it! But your view would seem (unless I misunderstand your explanation) to invoke the term Ecclesia Supplet in these cases.
But that’s just my personal view of it. My understanding is that what you have been expressing is just your view of it, is that correct? Or is this something that is current in Ecclesiology/ Sacramental Theology, etc? Is it common wisdom? Or is it your personal view on it? (Not to say your take isn’t valuable or wise!).
I hope I haven’t come across as argumentative. I was struggling to understand your position.
And that leads me to a really, really important point. I want to echo pnewton and say that I greatly appreciate your presence on this forum and all the time and (often heroic) effort that you put in. I want to sincerely thank you.
Prayers for you and your ministry this Christmas Eve night!
VC
I understand your explanation of why you want to use the phrase Ecclesia Supplet, and what meaning you give it.
I think what I was trying to say was that if
is the basis for saying something is a case of Ecclessia Supplet, then any time God acts in a direct way in the life of person in order to impart grace, in a case where the person should have or could have received the grace mediately through the sacraments, it would be, under your view, be a case of Ecclesia Supplet.All Graces flow through the Church, since the Church Herself was established by Christ to be the sole means of Grace. So we cannot seperate the actions of God apart from the Church even if a direct connection cannot be defined.
That seems to me to turn the utility of the phrase on its head. For instance, I’ve never seen anyone ever mention the term Ecclesia Supplet in connection with “Baptism by desire”. Another example: even though extra-sacramental forgiveness through perfect contrition is never considered apart from the actual sacrament of penance (to which is must refer by implicit or explicit intention), I’ve never seen that described as a case of Ecclesia Supplet. Maybe I’ve just never encountered it! But your view would seem (unless I misunderstand your explanation) to invoke the term Ecclesia Supplet in these cases.
But that’s just my personal view of it. My understanding is that what you have been expressing is just your view of it, is that correct? Or is this something that is current in Ecclesiology/ Sacramental Theology, etc? Is it common wisdom? Or is it your personal view on it? (Not to say your take isn’t valuable or wise!).
I hope I haven’t come across as argumentative. I was struggling to understand your position.
And that leads me to a really, really important point. I want to echo pnewton and say that I greatly appreciate your presence on this forum and all the time and (often heroic) effort that you put in. I want to sincerely thank you.
Prayers for you and your ministry this Christmas Eve night!
VC
- Status
- Not open for further replies.