SSPX mass OK?

[numealinesimpet]

The analysis on this thread completely ignores supplied jurisdiction.
…

Only because we have not got round to it yet.
For the SSPX’s position on this, see e.g.

FAQ QUESTION 9
DO TRADITIONAL PRIESTS HAVE JURISDICTION?

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q9_jurisdiction.htm

The nature of the present crisis in the Church is such that the faithful can on good grounds feel it a moral impossibility to approach priests having ordinary jurisdiction. [nume: if you live near a good confessor, give grateful thanks to God. Unfortunately, however, there are numberless cases from the past 30+ years where the most outrageous deviations in the orthodoxy of the confessor have been tolerated by the diocesan bishop]. And so, whenever the faithful need the graces of penance and want to receive them from priests whose judgment and advice they can trust, they can do so, even if the priests do not ordinarily have jurisdiction. Even a suspended priest can do this for the faithful who ask: “for any just cause whatsoever” (canon 1335). This is even more the case if a faithful Catholic can foresee his being deprived of the true sacrament of penance from priests with ordinary jurisdiction until he dies. Only God knows when this crisis will end.

The extraordinary form for marriages is foreseen in canon 1116, §1. If the couple cannot approach their parish priest “without serious inconvenience” —and they may consider as such his insistence on having the Novus Ordo Missae for the wedding, or their apprehensions concerning his moral teaching in marriage instructions —and if they foresee these circumstances to last for at least a month, then they can marry before witnesses alone, and another priest (e.g., of the SSPX) if possible (canon 1116, §2).

Even if one were to consider the above arguments as only probable [nume: this is a specialised, canonical term. It does not refer to an emotion or feeling of doubt, but to the objective existence of a defensible alternative opinion], then jurisdiction would still be certainly supplied by the Church (canon 144: Jurisdiction is ordinarily given by mandate from the pope or diocesan bishop, or perhaps delegated by the parish priest. The priests of the SSPX do not have jurisdiction in this way. Extraordinarily, however, the Church supplies jurisdiction without going through the constituted authorities. One case is that of probable doubt).

And so we must answer affirmatively. Traditional priests do have a jurisdiction that is neither territorial nor ordinary but supplied in view of the needs of the faithful.

 

[numealinesimpet]

FYI - John Salza is a lawyer, not a canon lawyer. He has done some excellent works, but supplied jurisdiction is one of controversy. Canon law is is specialty. Canon lawyer Ed Peters has spoken on the radio on supplied jurisdiction where it can apply, but it is not universal. For example, knowledge of lack of jurisdiction can negate supplied jurisdiction.

Obviously, knowledge of lack of jurisdiction can negate supplied jurisdiction on the basis of ‘common error’; but there are other grounds that would remain valid.

In any case, in reference to this thread, there is no canon lawyer I have heard that questions the validity of SSPX Mass. It does not need this eclessia supplet.

= “the Church supplies”. Nobody that I know has ever mentioned Supplied jurisdiction as either necessary or un-neccessary for offering the Mass. As the SSPX website explains:–

In virtue of his ordination, a priest can bless all things and even consecrate bread and wine in such wise that they become the very Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But whenever in his ministry he has to deal authoritatively with people, he needs, over and above the power of Orders, that of Jurisdiction, which empowers him to judge and rule his flock. Jurisdiction is, moreover, necessary for the validity itself of the sacraments of penance and matrimony.

pnewton writes:

Also, it should be noted that the article in the above link does not even have a footnote designating where it came from. I tried to locate the reference and found that catholicintl.com links another article on supplied jurisdiction by Fr. Ramon Angles, an Irish SSPX priest (no canon law credentials listed).

He is the Superior General of the SSPX in Ireland, which has the honour to be an Autonomous Region of the SSPX, and he is of the highest seniority within the Priestly Fraternity.

My point is that one should always understand any possible bias, especially when documentation is lacking.

As I said before, if in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Agreed. But that can, in particular cases, take one to the SSPX. The Party Line is not always the safest course.

 

[Lycorth]

. Agreed. But that can, in particular cases, take one to the SSPX. The Party Line is not always the safest course.

Indeed. Lately, and in the case of traditionalism in general, this is certainly how it takes me.