Do you really believe that abuses and sin came into the church AFTER VII? You better start studying your history.Ever hear of a little thing called the Reformation and what abuses led to it? There was much hanky panky . And simony goes all the way back to Simon magus. there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to sin.
I agree that the Society is claiming jurisdiction from the law itself and not any ordinary. This is how supplied jurisdiction works. If the Church supplies jurisdiction, the sacrament is valid. The validity of the sacrament does not depend upon the type of jurisdiction conferred.As we have been discussing, the issue comes down to who is giving the priest the faculties to absolve. The answer in the case of a suspended priest is , No one. Therefore, they have to renly on the Church supplying, which is not a blanket statement. Then you have the blanket statement made by Benedict XVI, “they do not exercise any legitimate ministry”. The key word is legitimate. For absolution to be legitimate, the person absolving must have faculties from either the local bishop or a major superior of men. Salza is entitled to his opinion, but this is not the practice.
You have to be very careful when you read someone like Salza, because he is trying very hard to help out the SSPX and others. But the commentaries on canon law are a more reliable source. I was trying to find one online and I can’t. All the ones that I found are for sale. If you want to buy a reader friendly one, I recommend the Navarre edition.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
If you’re around human beings you’re around sin. For a church with over a billion people I don’t think that we are out of the ordinary sinful. True one sin is more then enough but when people stop sinning I’ll know that the Parousia is not far behind.
What you have to keep in mind is that schisms are about authority and/or doctrine, not morals. When you deny the authority of the Church, you’re in schism. When you break a law, you’re disobedient and maybe acting illicitly. When you commit a sin, you’re in sin obviously.
As well he should. Just as those in the SSPX should not be recruiting at this time. Since talks are underway, let us see how they play out. Then, based on the outcome of the talks, faithful Catholics may be free to attend these chapels (without any caveats found in Msgr. Perle’s letter) or may be asked to abandon this group. Time will tell. For now, patience is asked.
I don’t know who the heck you hang out with but that is simply an overstatement and broad condemnation of a whole parcel of people. I’ve been involved in all kinds of ministries and been associated with the church for about thrirty years now.They are not apostate…Do people say one thing and believe another? of course. But i think that is true of most people of any religion or no religion. We all say we believe in this or that but often when challeged , by a difficult situation, we will often do or say something that, makes us look good, or change our view point and the justify our new position or say something that makes us feel that we are Not hypocrites(actors) who alter their positions when expedite for them or those they love.
We get it. You think they are valid. You are not alone. All of the SSPX and those sympathetic to it agree with you. I think you are all dead wrong, but I hope you are right.
I would suggest that you not use the code and commentaries of 1917. It only confuses things. What the code of 1983 tried to do was to streamline, because the code of 1917 had too many contingencies. The idea was to take those away. It also had many exceptions to this or that. What Pope John Paul II wanted to do was to centralize more authority on the papacy and the person of the pope and less on law. This made governing easier. Stick with the 1983 code and commentary. As I said above, the Navarre commentary is a good one. It’s easy to read and it clearly states that the jurisdiction is supplied to the priest, not to the penitent.
People tend to believe what they have a vested interest in believing.
No sir, it is something new. It is a direct statement specifically clarifying the status of the SSPX. This would also appear to clarify anything said tangentially by any Commission as well. Again, that statement is "
To make it even more clear, he reiterates “to make this clear once again” to avoid the kind of personal interpretations and taking things out of context that seem to be occurring here.
Yes indeed and go through all kinds of gymnastics to prove it.That’s just human nature.
Another point that has been made but it not referenced here is that, as the Pope has said, the SSPX do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church. Even assuming everything they do is valid, it’s all, automatically, illicit. Choosing to go to SSPX is a little like choosing to go to a validly ordained, reverent Rent-a-Priest. (I am not talking about life-or-death, no other priest available situations.)
As a point of order, JD, no one’s word is final if he or his successor can override it. If anything should have been final it would have been the words of St. Pius V, “in perpetuity,” which obviously was not the case.
I believe that many who support the SSPX should talk to the priests of the FSSP. If anyone really understands the problems with the SSPX it’s the FSSP. That’s why they left. They did not want to be in a situation where they were labeled as not having “any legitimate ministry” in the Church. If you do not have FSSP in your area, write them.
What I heard is that they were asked to move the site of the ordination and told the Vatican it was too late. This was so the ordinations would not be so high-profile. But I don’t know the credibility of these sources. I think it’s enough, though, to remind others that even these ordinations are still valid but the priests are under suspension until further notice or Rome personally removes the suspensions individually, which is what probably will happen. I’m only looking at the Anglican situation.
What I heard is that they were asked to move the site of the ordination and told the Vatican it was too late. This was so the ordinations would not be so high-profile. But I don’t know the credibility of these sources. I think it’s enough, though, to remind others that these ordinations are still valid but the priests are under suspension until further notice or Rome personally removes the suspensions individually, which is what probably will happen. I’m basing this on the 2007 SP, on the Anglican situation and also on the situation of a couple of local independent priests.
I agree with your entire dissertation, except that I would take slight exception to your term “valid faculties”. You may have just been using a colloquialism but there are no valid or invalid faculties. I would agree that priests of the SSPX have no faculties granted by the diocesan ordinary. And as such, they have no ordinary jurisdiction.I believe the clarification needs to be made between being a successor of the apostles and having the authority of the apostles. It is true that a Catholic and Orthodox bishops has apostolic succession. But it is not true that every bishop has the apostolic authority. Let’s move away from the SSPX for a moment, to take the emotionnal side out of this.
In a diocese where you have the bishop and two auxiliary bishops. The three are successors to the apostles, but only the the bishop of the diocese has the apostolic authority. The auxiliaries do not have apostolikc authority. Therefore, they cannot grant faculties or commission anyone. They can’t even ordain or confirm without the permission of the bishop.
Let’s use another example. You have a religious community such as mine, Franciscan Brothers of Lfie. The Major Superior is not a priest or a bishop. A friar wants to be ordained. The bishop does not have the apostolic authority to ordain him without the permission of the major superior.
This authority of which we speak is called Ordinary authority. Only the bishop of a diocese or the major superior of a religious order of men has ordinary authority as long as it is granted by the Holy See. No one else has it, even if that person is a bishop. Therefore the authority to commission or to grant fauculties really depends on two things: 1) the succession and 2) the communion with the bishop of Rome.
In the case of the Orthodox, they do not need the communion with the Bishop of Rome, because they were never Roman Catholic or Latin Rite Catholics, even before the schism.
In the case of the SSPX, they were ordained Latin Rite Catholic priests. They are not Ordinaries because they are not diocesan bishops nor canonical major superiors, since they have been stripped of all canonical authority by the Holy Father. Therefore, they cannot commission any priest or grant faculties. They have the line of succession, but not the line of authority. Since they are Latin Rite priests they can only get their authority from the Bishop of Rome, not from the succession. Just as an auxiliary only gets his authority from the local Ordinary, who gets his authority from the bishop of Rome.
Therefore, the priests of the SSPX have no valid faculties, because Rome has already declared that their bishops have no canonical authority or place in the Church. All these bishops can do validly, but illegally, is to hand downt the succession, not the faculties.
Since the priests of the SSPX are not religious, they must get their faculties from the Ordinary of the diocese. No one can celebrate sacraments in the diocese of any bishop without his permission, not even religious. The only exception made is for religious on their own property. Because when you step onto the property of a religious order, you’re not legally outside of the diocese. But as long as you’re inside the diocese, you have to go through the local bishop. Only religious orders and Orthodox can live inside the boundaries of a diocese and not be part of it. Every other Latin Rite Catholic is under the jurisdiction of the local bishop, no other bishop.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF