No Pope

[piouswoman]

There is a slight problem here. I agree that the liturgy is valid and that the priest is validly ordained. No questions there.

However, the logic is questionable.

We have an EF celebrated by priests who are in communion with Rome. Reason would say that a Catholic would celebrate the liturgy with a community that is in full communion with Rome instead of one that is in conflict with Rome.

My other concern here, not just with PW, but with anyone who calls themselves Catholic is that celebrating liturgy at an SSPX chapel reinforces the Society’s stance, rather than promote union with the Holy See.

No matter how much the SSPX claims to be in union with the Holy See, if the Holy See does not accept their terms, the union is very weak and the thread can snap at any moment. If the thread snaps, the SSPX is then a schismatic group.

This has not yet happened, but they are pushing the envelop. I don’t believe that Pope Benedict is going to concede every point that SSPX wants.

Therefore, at some point the dialogue is going to reach a conclusion. If the conclusion is that SSPX must return under the terms set by the Holy See or be excommunicated, then I feer for the SSPX supporters.

I would not take such a risk. I would find an EF in a parish that is in full communion with the Holy See.

Even the document written by the SSPX stresses the importance of union with Rome. So why provide reinforcement to a society that is running a great risk when there is no need to do so?

JR

The difference is that the SSPX offers the full Catholic life…not just Holy Mass on Sunday, but Holy Mass daily oftentimes more than once daily…at least at the larger chapels, access to all of the Sacraments in the Traditional form, Catholic schooling for families with children, rosary and Benediction weekly, Holy Mass on all Holy days of obligation etc.

 

[JReducation]

The difference is that the SSPX offers the full Catholic life…not just Holy Mass on Sunday, but Holy Mass daily oftentimes more than once daily…at least at the larger chapels, access to all of the Sacraments in the Traditional form, Catholic schooling for families with children, rosary and Benediction weekly, Holy Mass on all Holy days of obligation etc.

All of these things are good. But do you see the other side?

Right now there is a danger of a massive excommunication, which I understand that Pope Benedict is trying to avoid. However, at some point the situation is going to either be resolved, which I hope or come to a head.

If it comes to a head, Rome will win. It will do what it did to the Orthodox 1,000 years ago. The Holy Father will excommunicate not only the bishops, but those who choose to stay.

Excommunication is not to be taken lightly.

Even the Orthodox have chosen to seek reunification starting by negotiating with the Holy See to have the excommunication and the anathemas lifted, which they have been. But it took 1,000 years for the Church to lift them and it took the Orthodox admitting that they are willing to work toward reunification without strings attached.

At this point, Bishop Falley (sp?) is putting conditions on the Vatican. He’s not asking for dialogue. He’s antagonizing. His last statement was to rip Benedict apart because of his visit to the USA as if the USA were a brothel or a den of thieves, completely forgetting that there are millions of Catholics in the USA. He completely misrepresented the founding philosophy of the USA to blast the Pope.

This is not the language or action of a bishop who wants union with the Holy See. This is the language of someone who is picking a fight.

If a Catholic lends their support, they are reinforcing this behaviour. If this behavior does not change, the ambivalent satus of the SSPX will never be resolved or resolved against them.

JR

 

[Jennifer_J]

The difference is that the SSPX offers the full Catholic life…not just Holy Mass on Sunday, but Holy Mass daily oftentimes more than once daily…at least at the larger chapels, access to all of the Sacraments in the Traditional form, Catholic schooling for families with children, rosary and Benediction weekly, Holy Mass on all Holy days of obligation etc.

I usually stay out of these discussions, but I’m biting for some reason…so you’re saying because I don’t attend an SSPX parish, then I don’t have a full Catholic life? huh?? How could you know? My parish uses the ordinary form but we have daily Mass, all the Sacraments in the current approved form, sound Catholic schooling, Eucharistic adoration, etc…sounds like a pretty full Catholic life to me? You like Tradition, great, so do I. But Tradition doesn’t only mean SSPX , really, it doesn’t.

 

[catharina]

For any man (M. Lefebvre, the bishop Fellay) to defy the Holy Father is for a man to say, I object to the presence of you as the Pope, I object to your teachings, I object to your highly graced actions. How close is that to saying I object to the fact that the Holy Spirit operates in only you as Pope, not in me, only in you and yet still, knowing that, I object? That men who have never been Pope can object to a Pope in such a way is not a good thing when viewed as a part of Church Teaching and Church history.

The proof stands front and center: both men were excommuincated.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s take a look at this more systematically:

SSPX

1. Offers availability of mass in the Extraordinary Form, so does the Roman Catholic Church.
2. Offers all of the sacraments in the traditional form. The Roman Catholic Church no longer uses the traditional form for the sacraments, such as confession, ordination, marriage, baptism, confirmation and announting of the sick, but the sacraments are the sacraments. They are available to all at any time in any parish. Do I want the form or the sacrament? Does it make a difference to me whether my sins are forgiven in the form of 1962 or in the form of 2001? It does not. I want my sins forgiven, period.
3. They have benediction and rosary. There is not traditional rosary. The rosary is the rosary and it’s not liturgy. We can find the rosary in any parish or pray it alone or with others. Benediction is not a sacrament, it is a sacramental. The form does not make any difference. It is the same Blessed Sacrament that is exposed for our adoration and our sanctification and it is available in many parishes on a weekly basis and in others on special occasions.
4. Mass on holy days of obligation. The solemnities of the Church are celebrated by every Catholic parish in the world. There is no parish that does not celebrate the solemnities of the Church. The holy days of obligation are not all uniform to begin with. There are very few holy days of obligation for the universal church. Most of them are determined by the Conference of Bishops. The only one that I can think of that is universal is Christmas. I feel that I’m missing another, but it’s late and I can’t think clearly. The others depend on the Conference of Bishops or the religious orders who run the parishes.
5. Catholic schools: there are many very good Catholic schools in many parishes and many good Catholic schools that are free standing, run by religious communities. My daughter graduated from a Catholic high school in a Visitation Monastery. It is not part of a parish. The Visitation Nuns are cloistered and run schools for girls inside their cloister. It was a very orthodox and very good education. My son attended a high school run by Capuchin Franciscan Friars. You can’t get more orthodox than the Capuchins. By the time he graduated he knew scripture, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Spirituality of St. Francis as well as the friars did and he had a good academic education. Neither of these schools were in our parish, because we do not have a school. But there are schools all over.

PW doesn’t say what they offer in terms of other ministries such as the sick, disabled, elderly, divorced and widowed, youth, homeless, hospitals, prisons, RCIA, adult religious education, bible study etc. But these things are available in most parishes.

Many people go to one parish that has a good bible study and to their own parish for everything else.

My point is that if what you’re looking for is all of these things, they already exist. One just has to look for them.

What remains is an attachment to a form, not to a theology or to a spirituality.

Ultimately, what we must desire above all things is unity. To achieve this unity we must all commit to it.

We have to try to find our happiness in our faith, rather than the form.
In the end, the SSPX is going to have to yield to Rome or end up in a state of either ambivalence, which is where it is or excommunication for everyone.

If excommunicated, that raises the question are these people Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or what?

No matter how much their leadership may say that they are Catholic, if the Vatican says they are no longer Catholic, they are not.

It is not spiritually healthy to support anyone or any group that is at risk of losing their citizenship in the Church. The way that it is defined right now by the Holy Father, participation in SSPX ministries and activities is to lend support.

I understand the argument against blind obedience. But there is something to be said for common sense too. One should never engage in a war that one can’t win. You may win the battle and lose the war.

Also, there is no charity to bishops, priests and deacons in the SSPX to support their separation from the Holy Father’s wishes. It does them more harm than good.

As to salvation, there is no doubt that salvation can be found in the Catholic Church as it is. We may prefer the EF over the OF, but the OF is not sinful. We may believe that ecumenism should be different or non existent, but ecumenism is not sinful. There is nothing sinful in looking for unity and through this unity drawing men and women of all faiths to the truth that subsists in the Catholic Church.

to be continued

 

[JReducation]

continuation

There are errors taught by the SSPX. Two come to mind. First, they deny that permanent deacons are clerics. The deaconate has been part of holy orders since apostolic times and has been preserved in the East. Now the west is recovering it.

The other error was when Bishop Felley ranted about the Holy Father expressing his respect and admiration for freedom of religion in the USA. Freedom of religion is not in conflict with the Catholic faith. Truth faith must be free. If it is imposed by any authority its credibility is questinable.

I understand the SSPX appealing to the fact that not everything that comes from the Pope’s mouth is infallible. But then it wants to use every document and teaching of pre-vatican II popes as infallible. We can’t have it both ways. There were many teachings and decisions made by previous popes that were not infallible, but they were respected out of respect for his office and because they did not promote sin.

In the end, the SSPX promotes disobedience that is very difficult to justify. Unless one can justify the disobedience on morally sound grounds, then the disobedience becomes questionable. When there is doubt, one may not act. This is a basic rule of moral theology. It is very doubtful that the post Vatican II popes have led us into sin.

Has the world sinned? Of course. It has done so since Adam. Have there been tough times in the Church? Since the time of the Apostles. So what else is new. Are these things enough reason to disobey and to go on a campaign against the Church and the Pope? The great saints would say “NO”.

You fix things from within. You do not assume a spiritual superiority. That is dangerous. It can lead to spiritual pride, the pride of Luther. It can also lead to an unhealthy kind of faith. This is called toxic faith, because it becomes an obsesion. Once it becomes an obsession it’s not faith.

One has to consider all of these things in charity to oneself and ones loved ones.

JR

 

[LilyM]

The difference is that the SSPX offers the full Catholic life…not just Holy Mass on Sunday, but Holy Mass daily oftentimes more than once daily…at least at the larger chapels, access to all of the Sacraments in the Traditional form, Catholic schooling for families with children, rosary and Benediction weekly, Holy Mass on all Holy days of obligation etc.

You do understand that some of those sacraments aren’t valid though, whatever form they may be in? For the validity of some of them (especially confession and marriage), Canon Law requires that the minister have faculties from their diocese (which SSPX priests don’t, at least not from dioceses in communion with Rome which is to say they don’t have valid faculties at all).

Why would you want to go anywhere where the sacraments are in question? No amount of rosaries or benedictions is going to help me spiritually if I can’t get absolved of my sins when need be, or if my marriage isn’t a sacramental one! May as well go to an Episcopalian church if all you want is something that LOOKS valid.

 

[JReducation]

Obedience is addressed in this essay I provided, in the section under the heading:
The Danger of Being Drawn into Error

The great Franciscan lay brother, St. Leonard once preached a homily on sin and hell. He said that one is not led into error. One chooses it.

If one feels that something is in error, one can circumvent it without putting oneself into a precarious position.

To choose a precarious position for oneself and one’s family increases the risk of error.

Be more afraid of being outside the Catholic Church, than of error. Error you can avoid.

Losing the battle against the Church seems unavoidable at this time for the SSPX.

Their leadership has played some wrong cards lately.

I read your article from the SSPX, now I suggest your read St. Leonard.

olrl.org/snt_docs/fewness.shtml

JR

 

[JReducation]

You do understand that some of those sacraments aren’t valid though, whatever form they may be in? For the validity of some of them (especially confession and marriage), Canon Law requires that the minister have faculties from their diocese (which SSPX priests don’t, at least not from dioceses in communion with Rome which is to say they don’t have valid faculties at all).

Why would you want to go anywhere where the sacraments are in question? No amount of rosaries or benedictions is going to help me spiritually if I can’t get absolved of my sins when need be, or if my marriage isn’t a sacramental one! May as well go to an Episcopalian church if all you want is something that LOOKS valid.

Let’s not get confused here. The absence of faculties does not invalidate the sacrament as long as the person conferring the sacrament is validly ordained. The sacrament is illicit, but valid.

There trick with marriage is that the marriage must be valid for the Church and the State.

Unless the local bishop authorizes you to witness a miarriage, the State will not recognize it. It is not legal. This poses all kinds of legal complications for the couple and their children. To do this to a couple and to the children that they will have is a sin against justice.

To the best of my knowledge, SSPX is not registered as religion in the USA, because they claim to be Roman Catholic. But if the local bishop does not grant them faculties to witness a marriage, then the State will not recognize the marriage.

As to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, that has nothing to do with civil authorities. Therefore, the absolution is valid, but ilicit. The sin falls on the priest who absolves, not on the penitent.

This raises a queston, if the penitent knows that by approaching a priest to hear a confession illegally, when it is not a matter of life and death, is the penitent sinning by leading the priest into sin.

This is not resolved yet, but it’s an interesting question. The priest who hears a confession, without faculties definitely sins, unless it’s a matter of life or death.

The SSPX are not divided into diocese or part of any diocese. They are not religious either. The only other way to get faculties is if the priest is also a Brother. If he is also a Brother, such as are monks and friars, they are priests and Brothers, they get their faculties from their major superior.

With SSPX, Bishop Felley is the major superior of the Society, but he’s an excommunicated superior. Therefore, he has lost his right to grant faculties.

Some subscribers of SSPX may claim that the Orthodox can celebrate valid and licit sacraments, why can’t the SSPX? It’s a good question. The answer is simple.

The Orthodox have existed since apostolic times and were founded by the apostles. The Catholic Church could not take away their faculties, because they did not receive them from the bishop of Rome, but from the Apostles.

The SSPX received their faculties from Msgr. Lefebvre who received his faculties from the Bishop of Rome and his faculties were suspended. Therefore, he could not pass them on. The sacraments are valid, but ilicit.

Any priest who knowingly celebrates an ilicit sacrament commits a grave sin.

You do not need faculties to baptize or confirm. You need them to ordain, to preach, to absolve, and to witness a marriage. These sacraments are being celebrated illegally.

This means that the priest who celebrates these sacraments sins and the individual who applies to him for these sacraments, without necessity is in grave danger of sinning. Up to this point the Church has not said that those who apply to an SSPX priest for absolution or marriage are sinning, but it can do so. If it does not, then we have a very serious problem.

Those who support the SSPX cannot claim that if it’s OK to receive absolution from an Orthodox priest it must be ok to receive it from an SSPX priest.

The relationship between the SSPX and the Orthodox with Rome is very different. The Orthodox are sister Churches. The SSPX is a society that is a state of rebellion, not an apostolic church.

JR

 

[LilyM]

Let’s not get confused here. The absence of faculties does not invalidate the sacrament as long as the person conferring the sacrament is validly ordained. The sacrament is illicit, but valid.

JR

Nuh-uh. This is Canon Law on the subject of the sacrament of penance:

Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.

§2. A priest can be given this faculty either by the law itself or by a grant made by the competent authority according to the norm of ⇒ can. 969.

Can. 967 §1. In addition to the Roman Pontiff, cardinals have the faculty of hearing the confessions of the Christian faithful everywhere in the world by the law itself. Bishops likewise have this faculty and use it licitly everywhere unless the diocesan bishop has denied it in a particular case.

§2. Those who possess the faculty of hearing confessions habitually whether by virtue of office or by virtue of the grant of an ordinary of the place of incardination or of the place in which they have a domicile can exercise that faculty everywhere unless the local ordinary has denied it in a particular case, without prejudice to the prescripts of ⇒ can. 974, §§2 and 3.

§3. Those who are provided with the faculty of hearing confessions by reason of office or grant of a competent superior according to the norm of cann. ⇒ 968, §2 and ⇒ 969, §2 possess the same faculty everywhere by the law itself as regards members and others living day and night in the house of the institute or society; they also use the faculty licitly unless some major superior has denied it in a particular case as regards his own subjects.

Can. 968 §1. In virtue of office, a local ordinary, canon penitentiary, a pastor, and those who take the place of a pastor possess the faculty of hearing confessions, each within his jurisdiction.

§2. In virtue of their office, superiors of religious institutes or societies of apostolic life that are clerical and of pontifical right, who have executive power of governance according to the norm of their constitutions, possess the faculty of hearing the confessions of their subjects and of others living day and night in the house, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 630, §4.

Can. 969 §1. The local ordinary alone is competent to confer upon any presbyters whatsoever the faculty to hear the confessions of any of the faithful. Presbyters who are members of religious institutes, however, are not to use the faculty without at least the presumed permission of their superior.

What these Canons say firstly is that a priest MUST HAVE FACULTIES for their confession to be valid. No such thing as illicit-but-valid confessions for priests who don’t have faculties.

Secondly that CERTAIN priests have the faculty to hear confessions by virtue of their office or as otherwise stipulated in Canon Law - those priests being priests who are additionally bishops, cardinals, religious superiors etc etc. as the later sections state.

THOSE are the ones who don’t require to be granted faculties by the local Ordinary (bishop or whoever), since they ARE the local ordinaries and religious superiors.

What it doesn’t say is that ALL priests have faculties merely by virtue of being ordained. And remember no faculties, no valid confessions.

Remember what happens in cases where a priest is laicised, or sometimes even just as a disciplinary measure - they usually have their faculties either taken away permanently or suspended for a shorter period. How would it be possible for a bishop to take away faculties from any priest in his diocese (religious presumably excepted) if they hadn’t been all granted in the first place by episcopal permission?

 

[elts1956]

That’s easy catharina…you grab you missal, drive to the chapel, walk in the door and when Mass begins, you pray the Holy Mass. I know my answer sounds saucy, but I am serious.

Although THE CHURCH, your CHURCH you claim,does not support sspx divisionist Masses?? Now I can see a bit where you are coming from Either that, or you are a fundamentalist Protestant Convert who throws in a bit of Church tradition along with sola scriptura to try to prove you are the RIGHTEST one posting.

 

[elts1956]

That’s easy catharina…you grab you missal, drive to the chapel, walk in the door and when Mass begins, you pray the Holy Mass. I know my answer sounds saucy, but I am serious.

Let’s not get confused here. The absence of faculties does not invalidate the sacrament as long as the person conferring the sacrament is validly ordained. The sacrament is illicit, but valid.

There trick with marriage is that the marriage must be valid for the Church and the State.

Unless the local bishop authorizes you to witness a miarriage, the State will not recognize it. It is not legal. This poses all kinds of legal complications for the couple and their children. To do this to a couple and to the children that they will have is a sin against justice.

To the best of my knowledge, SSPX is not registered as religion in the USA, because they claim to be Roman Catholic. But if the local bishop does not grant them faculties to witness a marriage, then the State will not recognize the marriage.

As to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, that has nothing to do with civil authorities. Therefore, the absolution is valid, but ilicit. The sin falls on the priest who absolves, not on the penitent.

This raises a queston, if the penitent knows that by approaching a priest to hear a confession illegally, when it is not a matter of life and death, is the penitent sinning by leading the priest into sin.

This is not resolved yet, but it’s an interesting question. The priest who hears a confession, without faculties definitely sins, unless it’s a matter of life or death.

The SSPX are not divided into diocese or part of any diocese. They are not religious either. The only other way to get faculties is if the priest is also a Brother. If he is also a Brother, such as are monks and friars, they are priests and Brothers, they get their faculties from their major superior.

With SSPX, Bishop Felley is the major superior of the Society, but he’s an excommunicated superior. Therefore, he has lost his right to grant faculties.

Some subscribers of SSPX may claim that the Orthodox can celebrate valid and licit sacraments, why can’t the SSPX? It’s a good question. The answer is simple.

The Orthodox have existed since apostolic times and were founded by the apostles. The Catholic Church could not take away their faculties, because they did not receive them from the bishop of Rome, but from the Apostles.

The SSPX received their faculties from Msgr. Lefebvre who received his faculties from the Bishop of Rome and his faculties were suspended. Therefore, he could not pass them on. The sacraments are valid, but ilicit.

Any priest who knowingly celebrates an ilicit sacrament commits a grave sin.

You do not need faculties to baptize or confirm. You need them to ordain, to preach, to absolve, and to witness a marriage. These sacraments are being celebrated illegally.

This means that the priest who celebrates these sacraments sins and the individual who applies to him for these sacraments, without necessity is in grave danger of sinning. Up to this point the Church has not said that those who apply to an SSPX priest for absolution or marriage are sinning, but it can do so. If it does not, then we have a very serious problem.

Those who support the SSPX cannot claim that if it’s OK to receive absolution from an Orthodox priest it must be ok to receive it from an SSPX priest.

The relationship between the SSPX and the Orthodox with Rome is very different. The Orthodox are sister Churches. The SSPX is a society that is a state of rebellion, not an apostolic church.

JR

Hi JR. First paragraph. The way I read it is the Sacrament itself is NOT invalidated although the person conferring it may not have the faculty/right to do so. The person conferring the Sacrament is in an invalid state. In other words the conferee does not MAKE the Sacrament valid??? The Sacrament is still a Sacrament? Gee I missed my calling. I think I should have become a Jesuit.

 

[elts1956]

Oh, that is just too funny, elt…do you think there would be any controversy at all if it were required by all, that only websites “recognized” by the Vatican could be used? That is illogical. What has the fight for tradition been about all these long years then? It is a perfectly good and useful essay, written well and completely correct, and it is a fact that the SSPX remains faithful to Holy Mother Church and to Tradition, and they always have. There is no reason not to read it. Be careful if you want to remain ignorant though, the truth may just take you by surprise and turn on a light in your head.

Clarification of my previous posting. What I should have said:

Dearest PW. Why do you insist on posting websites belonging to divisive branches, or off shoots of the Catholic Church that are not recognzed as an authority by the true Catholic Church and are in danger of being excommunicated??? I think you have indoctrinated yourself with too much sspxasia.

 

[elts1956]

Oh, that is just too funny, elt…do you think there would be any controversy at all if it were required by all, that only websites “recognized” by the Vatican could be used? That is illogical. What has the fight for tradition been about all these long years then? It is a perfectly good and useful essay, written well and completely correct, and it is a fact that the SSPX remains FAITHFUL, FAITHFUL???to Holy Mother Church and to Tradition, and they always have. There is no reason not to read it. Be careful if you want to remain ignorant though, the truth may just take you by surprise and turn on a light in your head.

 

[LilyM]

PW, in what parallel universe does ‘out of communion with’ equal ‘faithful to’? It’s a logical impossibility for the SSPX or anyone else to be out of communion with Holy Mother Church (aka Rome) and at the same time faithful to her.

It’s like saying you’re faithful to your spouse even as you’re separated by your choice, and are no longer wearing your wedding ring or calling them your husband/wife. You know what the next step is for someone who does that - they’ll be flirting with someone new sure as night follows day.

 

[ethelzguy]

Obedience is addressed in this essay I provided, in the section under the heading:
The Danger of Being Drawn into Error

It strikes me, that the readings and gospel of today are especially pertinent, in the context of posts like this.

 

[catharina]

Obedience is addressed in this essay I provided, in the section under the heading:
The Danger of Being Drawn into Error

pw - do you accept the basis of all teaching: that if one is drawn into error by following the direction of legitimate Church authority, then one is not culpable for the error although the authority might well be culpable? With that in mind, do you understand how dangerous it is to follow the lead of those who are so relegated to the fringe that they routinely oppose Church authority? Following them (against Church Teaching and authority) is another matter entirely in terms of culpability. The individual’s responsibility in avoiding such extremes can easily be seen as exercising the wisdom and prudence of avoiding the near occasion of sin.

 

[NicPais83]

It is a perfectly good and useful essay, written well and completely correct… Be careful if you want to remain ignorant though, the truth may just take you by surprise and turn on a light in your head.

Except I have read it and I find that much of the SSPX literature is not well written and not completely correct. I would have no problem admitting if that were not the case, but to date I have not received any piece of literature that has not proven to me that there is faulty and dangerous logic at work. Much of the time they prove A, and then go “if A, then D” without tending to B and C. Now A can be wonderfully proven, which I find is done in the literature, but no matter how well one shows that A (Catholic teaching) is reasonable and logical, it does not follow that D (supposed heresies and errors in the Seond Vatican Council) follows. In the alphabet, D does not come right after A.

 

[JReducation]

Nuh-uh. This is Canon Law on the subject of the sacrament of penance:

Can. 966 §1. The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution.

The question here is that the SSPX is a canonically erected clerical society of apostolic life. Unless the Society is disbanded or excommunicated, it raises the question as to their faculties.

For example, a religious may get faculties from the Bishop or his Major Superior, both are Ordinaries. A Vincentian or Opus Dei or FSSP, even though he is not a religious, but belongs to a clerica society of apstolic life, as is the SSPX, receives his faculties from either the local bishop or his major superior.

We know that Bishop Felley has been excommunicated. Therefore, he can no longer grant faculties. But there remains a technical question as to which priests received faculties and which ones did not.

Not being a canon lawyer or having all the dates as to what happened in what order, I don’t know the answer.

What we do know is that in case of life and death, any priest can absolve, even a priest who has been dispensed or suspended. I know a case of a priest who was dispensed for more than 20 years and granted absolution to a man who had a heart attack on a golf course. This is valid.

Also, Orthodox priests can validly grant absolution to Catholics, even though they do not have faculties from a Catholic Ordinary.

Unfortuantely I don’t have a copy of the commentary. If someone has it, it would be interesting to know where the line is drawn. The Canon Law Society of America is the official interpreter of Canon Law for the Catholic Church. They do publish a commentary to the Canons of 1983.

Does anyone have a copy?

Given this canon in its most literal interpretation, one would have to assume that the absolution is not valid, unless there is legal “loophole” somewhere.

Thank you for the correction. I had not realized that they had added the requirement of faculties for validity to the 1983 canons. The old canons did not have that clause in it. It was always a problem, because everyone had to run to the bishop or a sacramental theologian or canonist for the answer. This is more clear.

JR

 

[pnewton]

What in the world does anything the SSPX says or thinks have to do with this thread? This is one area that they agree with the Catholic Church, namely, that Benedict XVI is the pope. They just don’t care for himor his predecesors, so they took up their toys and left.