A
Ana_v
Guest
I think the point of the article is to discuss nuances and inconsistencies.Yes, because this is covered allowed by law. This is legal error and the Church supplies jurisdiction in this case. And yes, I know the article you’re referring to and just like other disobedient groups, they resort to gymnastics and unfounded suppositions as primary premises (such as “The Church supplies jurisdiction in all cases” with no foundation at all in the law). This is supplied on a case by case basis. I can’t just waltz into St. Dennis here in Calgary, for example, knowing full well that is an SSPX church and expect to be absolved, unless I was in danger of death and that was the closest church I could get to before I expire.
That the meaning of canon law is “self-evident” to some, is not an argument for the Church not to clarify a controversy – which would not exist if canon law was indeed self-evident, as, Portrait mentioned, in a particular application. One of the essential responsibilities of the Church is to intervene where public scandal and confusion exists among the faithful.
I would not advise a person to confess to an SSPX priest if they have recourse to a Catholic priest in good standing. But I could not guarantee such a person that an SSPX priest could not validly absolve them if, as a matter of preference, they confessed to him rather than to another.