FSSP and SSPX question

[SaintGobban]

Once the pope says that you have no canonical ministry, the law does not apply. The pope overrules the law since he is the Living Law. This was established by St. Boniface.

There are situations, in which a bishop can grant a suspended priest faculties to grant absolution, even when there is no danger of death. That is the prudential judgment of the diocesan bishop and it can only be granted in a case by case basis. Each time you need it, you have to ask for the faculties to absolve.

As we already know, you never need to ask in an emergency.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I’m not sure what this person means. There is no link provided to explain or confirm his statement, and I’m not really understanding it. I can certainly agree that the Pope overrules the law when he chooses to overrule the law, but I’m not sure that this would apply to this situation.

I don’t believe the Pope has declared that the SSPX priests have no power to forgive sins or preside over marriages.

In fact, there is a portion in the above where a bishop in good standing has agreed that the confessions and marriages are valid based on Church Law, which in this case the Pope has not overridden.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you read the information in the link and sited the passages with which you disagee.

I think that there is a general ageement that without a “canoncial ministry” the SSPX can validly say Mass and confect the Eucharist, they are validly ordained priests, so obviously SOME laws must still apply because some laws are above Canon Law.** God’s law for the salvation of souls overrides Canon Law. (Canon 1752)**

 

[JReducation]

I’m not sure what this person means. There is no link provided to explain or confirm his statement, and I’m not really understanding it. I can certainly agree that the Pope overrules the law when he chooses to overrule the law, but I’m not sure that this would apply to this situation.

I don’t believe the Pope has declared that the SSPX priests have no power to forgive sins or preside over marriages.

In fact, there is a portion in the above where a bishop in good standing has agreed that the confessions and marriages are valid based on Church Law, which in this case the Pope has not overridden.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you read the information in the link and sited the passages with which you disagee.

I think that there is a general ageement that without a “canoncial ministry” the SSPX can validly say Mass and confect the Eucharist, they are validly ordained priests, so obviously SOME laws must still apply because some laws are above Canon Law.** God’s law for the salvation of souls overrides Canon Law. (Canon 1752)**

There are two caveats here.

First, part of our salvation depends on our communion with Peter. You cannot overrrule Peter for the sake of souls. That only works if Peter is commanding sin. Anything else, no matter how foolish you and I may think, Peter has the authority to command.

The second is related to the first. If you look at Canon Law, a priest who is suspended cannot validly absolve or witness marriages, except in case of emergency. If the suspended priests does so in the name of saving souls, the burden of proof is on him, not on the pope, bishop or religious superior who suspended him. He must prove that the soul before him was in a state of emergency. That would give him supplied jurisdiction.

I think that we’re too ready to give the SSPX priests a pass on something that Canon Law does not grant them a free pass, but when others break the law, we want them slammed, dunked and tarred and feathered. This is not right.

Authority is authority and authority has rights. I may not like it, but I cannot do anything about it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SaintGobban]

There are two caveats here.

First, part of our salvation depends on our communion with Peter. You cannot overrrule Peter for the sake of souls. That only works if Peter is commanding sin. Anything else, no matter how foolish you and I may think, Peter has the authority to command.

The second is related to the first. If you look at Canon Law, a priest who is suspended cannot validly absolve or witness marriages, except in case of emergency. If the suspended priests does so in the name of saving souls, the burden of proof is on him, not on the pope, bishop or religious superior who suspended him. He must prove that the soul before him was in a state of emergency. That would give him supplied jurisdiction.

I think that we’re too ready to give the SSPX priests a pass on something that Canon Law does not grant them a free pass, but when others break the law, we want them slammed, dunked and tarred and feathered. This is not right.

Authority is authority and authority has rights. I may not like it, but I cannot do anything about it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I see that you have no intention of reading and responding to the explanation in the link provided, so I just request that others read it and decide for themselves who is correct here.

Second, I don’t think this is an issue of overrulling Peter for the sake of souls. Peter has spoken about this particular circumstance through Canon Law which is sited in the link. And the primary consideration is the people who receive the Sacraments from these priests, and not the priests themselves. Peter allows that these men are valid priests, acting as priests in a Church or Chapel; and therefore, for the sake of souls, ie the people who go to them for the Sacraments, deems the sacrament valid. It isn’t about the disobedience of the priests, it’s about the faithfulness and sincerity of the penitents.

If you want to discuss disobedience to the Pope as a separate issue regarding the priests and hierarchy of SSPX, I’d be happy to discuss that. I think we would find ourselves on the same side of that issue.

Canon Law states clearly that the Church, with Peter as its head, has as its primary consideration “the salvation of souls.” And as such, there are times when other Canon Laws are sublimated to this consideration. This would be one of those times.

Sororily,
SAINT Gobban,

 

[SaintGobban]

This link offers an explanation of why confessions and marriages are valid:

gloria.tv/?media=59339

There are other places where the exact same thing is published.

 

[Sirach2]

SaintGobban,

Maybe you were unaware of the basis for your link. Gloria TV is quoting from the works of Fr. Glover, J.C.D., who is Professor of Canon Law for the Society of St. Pius X seminaries in Europe.
As such, he is printing his own interpretation from SSPX’s point of view, not that of the Catholic Church, which has stated that they do not have faculties for these sacraments.

 

[JReducation]

I see that you have no intention of reading and responding to the explanation in the link provided, so I just request that others read it and decide for themselves who is correct here.

Second, I don’t think this is an issue of overrulling Peter for the sake of souls. Peter has spoken about this particular circumstance through Canon Law which is sited in the link. And the primary consideration is the people who receive the Sacraments from these priests, and not the priests themselves. Peter allows that these men are valid priests, acting as priests in a Church or Chapel; and therefore, for the sake of souls, ie the people who go to them for the Sacraments, deems the sacrament valid. It isn’t about the disobedience of the priests, it’s about the faithfulness and sincerity of the penitents.

If you want to discuss disobedience to the Pope as a separate issue regarding the priests and hierarchy of SSPX, I’d be happy to discuss that. I think we would find ourselves on the same side of that issue.

Canon Law states clearly that the Church, with Peter as its head, has as its primary consideration “the salvation of souls.” And as such, there are times when other Canon Laws are sublimated to this consideration. This would be one of those times.

Sororily,
SAINT Gobban,

You missed what I’m trying to explain to you. Canon Law also says that a suspended priest cannot validly hear confessions, except in case of emergency and cannot witness marriages. They’re not even supposed to celebrate mass in public.

While there is a canon that states the mission of the Church is to save souls, one cannot ignore the one that says that a suspended priest cannot hear confessions. If we could ignore this, then every suspended priest can and should be hearing confessions: sexual offenders, womanizers, heretics, or any other. What difference does it make why the priest is suspended. He can ignore the suspension and proceed to hear confessions, because of the other canon.

The Canon that states that the mission of the Church is to save souls is about the Church, not about individual priests.

The article is trying to build an argument against one canon using another.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SaintGobban]

SaintGobban,

Maybe you were unaware of the basis for your link. Gloria TV is quoting from the works of Fr. Glover, J.C.D., who is Professor of Canon Law for the Society of St. Pius X seminaries in Europe.
As such, he is printing his own interpretation from SSPX’s point of view, not that of the Catholic Church, which has stated that they do not have faculties for these sacraments.

Not according to the link. They provide the name of at least two Catholic Bishops in good standing who explain why they DO have faculties for these sacraments.

 

[JReducation]

Not according to the link. They provide the name of at least two Catholic Bishops in good standing who explain why they DO have faculties for these sacraments.

Two bishops do not the Roman Signatura make. Until Cardinal Burke says so, the law is applied as it is written.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SaintGobban]

You missed what I’m trying to explain to you. Canon Law also says that a suspended priest cannot validly hear confessions, except in case of emergency and cannot witness marriages. They’re not even supposed to celebrate mass in public.

While there is a canon that states the mission of the Church is to save souls, one cannot ignore the one that says that a suspended priest cannot hear confessions. If we could ignore this, then every suspended priest can and should be hearing confessions: sexual offenders, womanizers, heretics, or any other. What difference does it make why the priest is suspended. He can ignore the suspension and proceed to hear confessions, because of the other canon.

The Canon that states that the mission of the Church is to save souls is about the Church, not about individual priests.

The article is trying to build an argument against one canon using another.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You obviously completely ignored my response to your previous post, which already dealt with your objections above.

Maybe one cannot ignore, but in the case of SSPX, they DID ignore.

They have priests, validly ordained, in Churches and Chapels, in priestly garb, saying valid Masses, validly confecting the Eucharist, and hearing Confessions.

As such, a penitent, under these circumstances, validly receives the Sacrament under Canon Law because of the misperception of the penitent. It has nothing to do with wether the priest is behaving has he should. In this case, which exists in fact, the Church supplies the jurisdiction, making the Sacrament valid, for the “salvation of souls.”

The article references two Catholic Bishops, in good standing, who concur with this interpretation of the situation and with this reading of the Canon Law.

If you assert that SSPX should not be hearing confessions, that is certainly supportable.

But since they ARE hearing confession, and since the topic is the validity of their absolutions and marriage witness, we are here on this thread to answer that particular question.

I believe it has been answered.

 

[JReducation]

You obviously completely ignored my response to your previous post, which already dealt with your objections above.

Maybe one cannot ignore, but in the case of SSPX, they DID ignore.

They have priests, validly ordained, in Churches and Chapels, in priestly garb, saying valid Masses, validly confecting the Eucharist, and hearing Confessions.

**As such, a penitent, under these circumstances, validly receives the Sacrament under Canon Law because of the misperception of the penitent. ** It has nothing to do with wether the priest is behaving has he should. In this case, which exists in fact, the Church supplies the jurisdiction, making the Sacrament valid, for the “salvation of souls.”

The article references two Catholic Bishops, in good standing, who concur with this interpretation of the situation and with this reading of the Canon Law.

If you assert that SSPX should not be hearing confessions, that is certainly supportable.

But since they ARE hearing confession, and since the topic is the validity of their absolutions and marriage witness, we are here on this thread to answer that particular question.

I believe it has been answered.

I believe that you’re conveniently ignoring something in your own text. When the penitent does not know that the priest should not be hearing his confession, the Church supplies. This is true.

It is also deceptive on your part to state that these suspended priests are validly hearing confessions without telling your readers that the validity is not because they have a right to hear those confession, which they do not, because they are suspended. The validity is provided through the mercy of the Church for those penitents who do not know that these priests should not be hearing their confessions. This makes it even worse when a suspended priest fails to tell a penitent that he does not have the authority to hear confessions unless it’s an emergency.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)