FSSP? SSPX? ABCDEFG? What's the deal?

[stevusmagnus]

SSPX priests celebrate Mass validly but illicitly. However, their celebration of the Sacrament of Confession is both illicit and invalid (except in danger of death) in light of the fact that priests need to have faculites in order to validly celebrate Reconciliation (except in danger of death).

SSPX Confessions are valid through supplied jurisidction under Canon Law.

 

[stevusmagnus]

They have valid sacraments but practice them illicitly, due to the excomunication of Lebefer in 1988 over the ordination scandal and the society suspended state.

The “excommunications” were remitted by the Pope.

 

[Melchior_1]

The “excommunications” were remitted by the Pope.

Not sure why you used quotation marks there mate, the excommunications happened and were legitimate.

 

[At_Trent]

Not sure why you used quotation marks there mate, the excommunications happened and were legitimate.

Same with "traditionalists " ?

Trads happen and they are legitamate

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
Pope St. Pius X

 

[stevusmagnus]

Not sure why you used quotation marks there mate, the excommunications happened and were legitimate.

I agree they happened. I disagree they were legitimate. Fortunately now the point is moot. They were remitted and cease to have any juridical effect.

 

[Melchior_1]

Same with "traditionalists " ?

Trads happen and they are legitamate

“Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.”
Pope St. Pius X

Pretty sure the only time you see me use “traditionalist” is if I’m differentiating between that and “Traditionalist”, but you already know that

I agree they happened. I disagree they were legitimate. Fortunately now the point is moot. They were remitted and cease to have any juridical effect.

Blessed John Paul II disagreed with you on if they were legit or not. But hey, if you think you have better judgment on canonical matters than the Pope, be my guest!

 

[malphono]

SSPX Confessions are valid through supplied jurisidction under Canon Law.

That’s what they themselves have said, and they’ve used a similar justification (perhaps “rationalization” is better) for quite a few things. It’s all questionable at best. One would be hard pressed to find a canon lawyer who agrees with them. Those I’ve spoken with do not.

 

[stevusmagnus]

That’s what they themselves have said, and they’ve used a similar justification (perhaps “rationalization” is better) for quite a few things. It’s all questionable at best. One would be hard pressed to find a canon lawyer who agrees with them. Those I’ve spoken with do not.

Rome apparently agrees with them as they have ordered Society marriages to be recorded in local Church directories as well as approving of a Society confession regarding abortion, which needs Roman approval for absolution.

It is clear from Canon Law that the intent is not to punish the penitent for lack of faculties. Salvation of souls is the highest law.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Blessed John Paul II disagreed with you on if they were legit or not. But hey, if you think you have better judgment on canonical matters than the Pope, be my guest!

Even the Pope must apply the law as it is written at the time the event occurs. There was a clear provision in Canon Law that forbade automatic excommunication for acts the ACTOR sincerely believes are out of necessity. It is the mind of ABL that mattered for the auto excom to take effect. He clearly sincerely believed he was acting out of necessity. Therefore, by Canon Law, the excommunication was invalid.

As I said, this is all pointless as the excommunications have been remitted and the excommunications are no longer any basis for why the Society is in an “irregular” state.

 

[malphono]

Rome apparently agrees with them as they have ordered Society marriages to be recorded in local Church directories as well as approving of a Society confession regarding abortion, which needs Roman approval for absolution.

Matrimony is totally different: there is no need of “faculties” for the validity of that sacrament in the Latin Church. In re the example about Penance, notice that Rome granted approval. Essentially that means faculties were supplied after the fact. That is quite different from the principle of ecclesia supplet, which applies only in extremis.

It is clear from Canon Law that the intent is not to punish the penitent for lack of faculties. Salvation of souls is the highest law.

That is very true, but at the same time it is also more than clear that the priest requires faculties in order to grant a valid absolution. Absent those faculties, he cannot do so (except in extremis where the principle of ecclesia supplet actually does apply).

 

[Melchior_1]

Even the Pope must apply the law as it is written at the time the event occurs. There was a clear provision in Canon Law that forbade automatic excommunication for acts the ACTOR sincerely believes are out of necessity. It is the mind of ABL that mattered for the auto excom to take effect. He clearly sincerely believed he was acting out of necessity. Therefore, by Canon Law, the excommunication was invalid.

As I said, this is all pointless as the excommunications have been remitted and the excommunications are no longer any basis for why the Society is in an “irregular” state.

Who decides what Canon Law is valid or not? The Pope. He’s the chief Canon Lawyer, it comes with the whole “bind/loose on Earth will be bound/loose in Heaven” business. If the Pope said that a Canon Law doesn’t apply in a situation (ie; there isn’t a Crisis as described by His Grace at that time) then Canon Law doesn’t apply.

And, like it or not, there is a point to this. It’s the consistent minimalization and near rejection of Church authority that happens when discussing things about/with the SSPX. “Disobedience is bad, but His Grace’s was fine”. “Oh, the Masses are only illicit, that’s no big deal”. “Canon Law is above the Pope!” (despite, as I said before, the Pope is the chief Canon Lawyer within the Church).

 

[stevusmagnus]

Matrimony is totally different: there is no need of “faculties” for the validity of that sacrament in the Latin Church. In re the example about Penance, notice that Rome granted approval. Essentially that means faculties were supplied after the fact. That is quite different from the principle of ecclesia supplet, which applies only in extremis.

There most certainly is a need for a priest to have jurisdiction to preside over a valid marriage. The Church here was affirming the fact that the Society priests have supplied jurisdiction for marriages.

That is very true, but at the same time it is also more than clear that the priest requires faculties in order to grant a valid absolution. Absent those faculties, he cannot do so (except in extremis where the principle of ecclesia supplet actually does apply).

The priest requires jurisdiction to grant a valid absolution, not necessarily faculties. The “in extremis” exception you refer to, where is that in Canon Law? Canon Law provides clear rules on when jurisdiction is supplied. It even states that Catholics may ask for absolution from excommunicated priests for any just reason.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Who decides what Canon Law is valid or not? The Pope. He’s the chief Canon Lawyer, it comes with the whole “bind/loose on Earth will be bound/loose in Heaven” business. If the Pope said that a Canon Law doesn’t apply in a situation (ie; there isn’t a Crisis as described by His Grace at that time) then Canon Law doesn’t apply.

As I’ve said before, the Pope must follow his own Canon Law at the time the incident occurs. Like it or not, Canon Law refers to the mind of the ABL (not JPII) as to whether he sincerely believed there to be a necessity. It doesn’t matter in the slightest if, in reality, there was no necessity. If the actor acted out of sincere belief there was a necessity, then automatic excommunication cannot apply. JPII didn’t actually issue the decree, I think it was Cardinal Gantin. Neither JPII nor the Cardinal ever applied the relevant Canons or gave ABL a hearing.

And, like it or not, there is a point to this. It’s the consistent minimalization and near rejection of Church authority that happens when discussing things about/with the SSPX. “Disobedience is bad, but His Grace’s was fine”. “Oh, the Masses are only illicit, that’s no big deal”. “Canon Law is above the Pope!” (despite, as I said before, the Pope is the chief Canon Lawyer within the Church).

It is not the minimization of Church authority, but the proper notion of Catholic obedience. St. Thomas teaches that Faith is a higher virtue than obedience. ABL committed a disobedient act, true. Whether that act was right or wrong is a different matter. Disobedience is not always bad. It depends on what is being demanded.

Canon Law is not above the Pope. He has the power to amend and change it. But until he does so he has the natural obligation to apply his own law as it is stated at the time. As for the licitness of Masses, Catholic Answers own website states that illicit Masses still fulfill the Sunday obligation. They were speaking of Masses where the priests don’t follow the rubrics, but the same principle applies to Society Masses. An illicit Mass is an illicit Mass. Furthermore Rome itself has said it would not be a sin to assist at a Society Mass.

 

[malphono]

There most certainly is a need for a priest to have jurisdiction to preside over a valid marriage. The Church here was affirming the fact that the Society priests have supplied jurisdiction for marriages.

The priest requires jurisdiction to grant a valid absolution, not necessarily faculties. The “in extremis” exception you refer to, where is that in Canon Law? Canon Law provides clear rules on when jurisdiction is supplied. It even states that Catholics may ask for absolution from excommunicated priests for any just reason.

Perhaps it would be best to ask a non-SSPX canon lawyer.

 

[TimothyH]

OK, now that the thread has devolved into a discussion about canon law…

And given the many multisyllabic words such as jurisdiction, juridical, illicit, invalid, faculties, traditionalist, excommunications and such…

And with the award for short, concise answer going to DL82…

I have the information I am looking for. The Mass I want to attend is FSSP. The consensus is that FSSP are righteous dudes and so I’ll go check it out. Personally, I’ll wait and see about anything else.

No offense, but I really don’t want to touch anything with the proverbial ninety nine and a half foot pole which isn’t all kosher by the Pope

Andthanksfortheabcdefglink.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

ABCDEFG

Now that’s what I call dumbed-down. But I see your point.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Perhaps it would be best to ask a non-SSPX canon lawyer.

COUNT NERI CAPPONI, D.Cn.L., LL.D:
The retired Professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, well-known in Vatican legal circles and accredited to argue cases before Rome’s highest juridical body, the Apostolic Signatura, explains that for a schismatic act, it is not enough to merely consecrate a bishop without papal permission. “He must do something more. For instance, had he set up a hierarchy of his own, then it would have been a schismatic act. The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre said ‘I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.’ Therefore this act was not, per se, schismatic” and so he is not excommunicated. (Latin Mass Magazine, May-June 1993)

 

[stevusmagnus]

No offense, but I really don’t want to touch anything with the proverbial ninety nine and a half foot pole which isn’t all kosher by the Pope

What about what is kosher with the current Pope but wasn’t kosher with the first 261 Popes? Namely Catholics hosting and attending ecumenical prayer gatherings with non-Christian worship.

 

[surritter]

What about what is kosher with the current Pope but wasn’t kosher with the first 261 Popes? Namely Catholics hosting and attending ecumenical prayer gatherings with non-Christian worship.

Would you agree that there’s an element of obedience to proper authority involved? If there’s a stop sign down at the corner, and the following week the city removes the stop sign from that corner, your logic would imply that we must still stop there, because the previous “261 popes” deemed the stop sign appropriate.

There are certain things which cannot be changed by any pope, and there are other things which can be changed (such as the Tridentine or EF Mass to the OF Mass). So you need to show us where it is an unchangeable dogma that a pope is ineligible to pray with non-Christians in public.

FYI … your mention of 261 previous popes has me wondering if you simply lost count, or perhaps you are making a statement about your views of the recent popes?

 

[malphono]

malphono;8345611:

stevusmagnus;8346054:

There most certainly is a need for a priest to have jurisdiction to preside over a valid marriage. The Church here was affirming the fact that the Society priests have supplied jurisdiction for marriages.

The priest requires jurisdiction to grant a valid absolution, not necessarily faculties. The “in extremis” exception you refer to, where is that in Canon Law? Canon Law provides clear rules on when jurisdiction is supplied. It even states that Catholics may ask for absolution from excommunicated priests for any just reason.

Perhaps it would be best to ask a non-SSPX canon lawyer.COUNT NERI CAPPONI, D.Cn.L., LL.D:
The retired Professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, well-known in Vatican legal circles and accredited to argue cases before Rome’s highest juridical body, the Apostolic Signatura, explains that for a schismatic act, it is not enough to merely consecrate a bishop without papal permission. “He must do something more. For instance, had he set up a hierarchy of his own, then it would have been a schismatic act. The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre said ‘I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.’ Therefore this act was not, per se, schismatic” and so he is not excommunicated. (Latin Mass Magazine, May-June 1993)

The quote is lovely, but it’s totally non-sequitur.