Freedom of ex-priests to offer sacraments?

[ASimpleSinner]

Over in the Eastern Christian Forum here at CAF we seem to have come to an impasses on an issue that an Orthodox Christian has presented…

Zaphod:

As I understand it, Canon 1335 permits those suspended from the exercise of the priestly ministry, to celebrate the sacraments, sacramentals and acts of governance whenever requested by a member of the faithful “for any just cause whatsoever.”

That seems to give a fair bit of leeway to supposed laicized schismatic priests to validly and licity exercise priestly duties, whenever it takes their fancy.

To which I respond:

ASimpleSinner:

Hardly.

Canon 1335 reads: “If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latae sententiae [automatic] censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.”

To me it seems rather clear that this is not ***carte blanche *** blanket approval for any and all folks who have either been laicized (which I believe is what the canon is most directly concerned with) or have received ordination from irregular (illicit) sources.

When reading the full text of the canon, it does not seem to me to support the notion that anyone who has either (1) been laicized or (2) been received into full communion with the Catholic Church after reception of possibly valid but illicit orders (such as Old Catholic ordination).

How best to respond to this claim that the canon “seems to give a fair bit of leeway to supposed laicized schismatic priests to validly and licity exercise priestly duties, whenever it takes their fancy.”?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Aramis]

It’s for emergencies.

For example, caught on a boat at sea during a major storm, or trapped in a burning high-rise.

Or, heaven forbid, the celebrant is called home during the consecration… and there isn’t another priest around.

Now, it’s possible that a priest with valid but illicit orders might be incardinated by the bishop and put to service as a priest. Heck, that is the hope for the SSPX!

It’s also possible for a laicized priest to be called back to serve as a priest; that’s the Roman Pontiff’s call. After all, a laicized priest is STILL a priest.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

It’s for emergencies.

For example, caught on a boat at sea during a major storm, or trapped in a burning high-rise.

Or, heaven forbid, the celebrant is called home during the consecration… and there isn’t another priest around.

Now, it’s possible that a priest with valid but illicit orders might be incardinated by the bishop and put to service as a priest. Heck, that is the hope for the SSPX!

It’s also possible for a laicized priest to be called back to serve as a priest; that’s the Roman Pontiff’s call. After all, a laicized priest is STILL a priest.

Aramis,

Fancy meeting you here!

Well I assert the same as you do. But our brother Zaphod seems to be incredulous. I was rather hoping to hear from the wider community.

Thanks for bumping us back into the first page of the forum though!

Simple.

(BTW - aren’t you in Alaska where the days are like 23 hours long this time of year?)

 

[MICATH]

I have always understood it was for emergencies.

Several years back we had a relative in the hospital who was near death in the middle of the night.

The Chaplain who was present at the hospital was a married, laicized priest. He explained (correctly, I hope) that because of the grave situation and the possibility a priest may not make it to the hospital before death, he could offer the Sacrament of the Sick. I hope he was correct!

 

[Deacon_Ed]

There seems to be a disconnect between canon 1335 and the title of the thread. An “ex-priest” is one who has been laicized and is, therefore, prohibited from the celebration of any sacraments with the sole exception of hearing the confession of one who is dying and who requests it.

A priest who has been suspended is still a priest, but has has his faculties withdrawn for public celebration of the sacraments (that is, he has been censured, not excommunicated).

Thus, while he cannot celebrate publicly, he can celebrate in response to a request (usually this is expected to be in extremis only).

Deacon Ed

 

[Fuerza]

Aramis,

Fancy meeting you here!

Well I assert the same as you do. But our brother Zaphod seems to be incredulous. I was rather hoping to hear from the wider community.

Thanks for bumping us back into the first page of the forum though!

Simple.

(BTW - aren’t you in Alaska where the days are like 23 hours long this time of year?)

Sometimes it’s not worth getting involved in arguments on the Eastern forum. There are some among our Orthodox brothers and sisters who, while well-intentioned, absolutely refuse to believe any explanation of Catholic doctrine that goes against what they have erroneously been taught, despite the mountains of evidence which can usually be offered.

This is part of the reason that I have toned down my participation in that forum to a more passive level. I needed a break because the frustration was literally giving me chest pains. I’m too young for heart problems.

I hope you get the information that you want. Good luck.

 

[Aramis]

Aramis,

Fancy meeting you here!

Well I assert the same as you do. But our brother Zaphod seems to be incredulous. I was rather hoping to hear from the wider community.

Thanks for bumping us back into the first page of the forum though!

Simple.

(BTW - aren’t you in Alaska where the days are like 23 hours long this time of year?)

Yes…Closer to 20 hours… at least in southcentral. It’s dark at midnight. By equinox, it’ll be 12, and at christmastime, 4. Fairbanks runs to 24 (counting an hour of bright twilight) in summer, and an hour at christmas.

On topic:

the term Ex-priest is problematic. A suspended priest is not an “ex-priest” in any sense, merely a priest under punishment.

Priestly converts to other religions are Ex-Priests…

But no other categories really count as “Ex” priests.

A Laicized priest still has received and holds the priestly ordination. A Laicized deacon is still a deacon. A laicized preist returning to the priesthood would not be reordained.

A suspended priest may have even his private celebrations blocked, but with a commensurate release from the obligation to say the mass.

I know one deacon who was suspended (for preaching heresy). He is still a deacon, and will still be buried in Alb and stole. He’s forbidden to even vest, save for choir vesture of cassock and surplice, and then only to sit in choir. Still, he’s obliged to say the hours.

Another deacon was laicized when he asked to be granted permission to remarry, a request he was granted. He, however, was incardinated as a deacon elsewhere, with Rome’s permission.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Sometimes it’s not worth getting involved in arguments on the Eastern forum. There are some among our Orthodox brothers and sisters who, while well-intentioned, absolutely refuse to believe any explanation of Catholic doctrine that goes against what they have erroneously been taught, despite the mountains of evidence which can usually be offered.

This is part of the reason that I have toned down my participation in that forum to a more passive level. I needed a break because the frustration was literally giving me chest pains. I’m too young for heart problems.

I hope you get the information that you want. Good luck.

I am in total agreement with your sentiments.

I feel, sometimes, that a change of venue from the ECF - on issues such as these are a little better because it gets us a way from some of the parochialism of that board. Also, I feel a lot of the issues addressed there are more appropriate for the Apologetics forum… But I sometimes sense some of the posters there would rather keep it in ECF given that many many serious apologists in CAF will no longer bother to check over there…